This is not a big issue but I am curious. From a purely mechanical perspective, why would any character choose to buy a mace over a quarterstaff? They both have almost identical combat stats, except the quarterstaff is versatile (1d8). The mace costs 5 gp and the quarterstaff 2 sp. The quarterstaff is far and away the "better" buy at 4% the cost of the mace.
I have a character in my game who has learned that the encounters ahead will involve skeletons, so he has sought out a weapon that does bludgeoning damage. He was offered a mace and took a quarterstaff. I wondered why until I saw those stats. Is it worth 'balancing' them a bit by having quarterstaffs break on a natural 1 attack roll (and do 1d4 damage and lose their versatile property thereafter) or is it a non-issue and just accept a lot of quarterstaff-weilders? I also think a quarterstaff should not be able to be silvered due to the wood's flexibility. What do you think?
El_Condoro wrote:
Quarterstaves can be bound with iron on the ends, like a cap. These can then be silvered for game mechanics purposes while still having an in game explanation.
There may be roleplay reasons to choose a mace over a staff as well. Easier to conceal. Preferred weapon of a knight or cleric, and so on.
just buff the mace to have the same stats as a quarterstaff.... i didn't like that when i first seen it either
The mace has the same stats as the quarterstaff (D: 1d6 bludgeoning). Looking at other stats, I am wondering if, rather than nerfing the quarterstaff, buff the mace to do 1d8 damage instead. It would make it comparable to a great club, but that requires 2 hands and therefore no shield - a mace gives either option. It is not as good as the versatile warhammer but cheaper.
DM_HEEGZ wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
Perhaps because when you are not using it, you can hang a mace from your belt.
Looking at the weapon chart, I have a slightly different question. Should quarterstaff (an iron shod wooden pole) be "two-handed" rather than "versatile"?
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
CCS wrote:
akr71 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
From a purely mechanics standpoint, no reason to take mace over quarterstaff. But:
"A mace?" chuckles a sword-master. "A weapon fit for a thug. Why carry one?"
Red-faced, the peasant warrior says: "My da taught me to fight... he gave me his mace when he died."
Staves in my campaign are 2H weapons. If it's light enought to wield with one hand it's a club.
I don't see any historical justification for a 1H staff as an effective weapon. And a staff in one hand and a shield in the other? Baloney.
If a character wanted to wield a staff one handed, I'd give them d4 damage. Even that is generous. The more I think about it the more I believe a 1H staff wielder would be singularly ineffective. Club+shield would be better than 1H staff+shield any day.
I think I remember something about quarterstaves being versatile to accommodate casters...since a staff is always also a quarterstaff, a wizard needs to be able to hold it in one hand for spellcasting.
Of course I may be misremembering, and if that is the design intent, it's poorly done. You only need to be able to "access" the staff with one hand, not wield it properly, so making it a two-handed weapon wouldn't interfere with casters at all.
El_Condoro wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
Hepius wrote:
I think it is absurd for a PC to use a quarterstaff in one hand. It just doesn't work. Heck, a spear in one hand is bad enough, a quarterstaff would be laughable.
El_Condoro wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Using a staff one handed, "like a short spear" is fine, except it doesn't have a point. If a spear with a point is doing d6, then a spear without a point should do less.
Grab a baseball bat and swing it one handed. Then grab a 6' pole and give it a few one handed swings. You'll get nothing like the same force out of your blows. It will also be a clumsy, awkward weapon.
Coredump00 wrote:
Um... Anyone remember Gandalf? He wielded his quarterstaff in one hand. Smaller/lighter staves can also be used one-handed. In fact, staves have multiple one-handed maneuvers in many martial arts. Using it one-handed exclusively is the part that breaks suspension of disbelief (but only slightly). Centrifugal force plays a large part in using a quarterstaff one-handed. While it remains in motion, it is extremely well balanced and easily manipulated with a single hand.
Macv12 wrote:
Oriet wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Yes, let's argue how common it is on earth to use a quarterstaff one-handed. Sounds like fun. Meanwhile, no one look at that monk running across the water's surface. Never mind that her punches are more lethal than that burly guy's longsword.
Or that ranger armed with nothing but a longbow spraying arrows across a 20-foot circle of enemies.
Or the berserker who is harder to kill when butt-nekkid than he is when wearing armor. Or for that matter, tougher than anyone, period.
Or that chick with the shortswords who uses them by flailing both arms around to slice at things nonstop every couple seconds.
Or the a fighter clad in a full suit of armor swinging his two-handed battleaxe around 8 times in 6 seconds, with time to squeeze in a reaction attack when someone runs away, before doing the same 8 attacks in the next 6 seconds.
Because it's not like it's a fantastical game or whatever.
I mean really. Ask anyone but a fighter or rogue how they do physically impossible things, and they can just make jazz hands and say "maaaaagic." Primal magic, divine magic, ki, whatever. But the fighter's worse than any of those chumps, churning out 4-8 attacks every six seconds non-stop, while still blocking competently with their shield or reloading their crossbow between each shot or whatever.
But swinging a stick with one arm? HA! You think I was born yesterday?!
Now to be clear, I'd like to reiterate that I support a quarterstaff being made into a flat two-handed weapon. Just to make sure no one misinterprets my position. I can't think of a situation where you would really need to get your proficiency bonus on an attack with a quarterstaff held in one hand. Two-hand it, improvise it, or use something else.
But it's being suggested that one-handing a staff is so egregiously wrong as to break suspension of disbelief. It just can't be done competently. That's just silly. There are a lot of ways to get such a weapon swinging fast enough to do some damage. I suggested holding it like a spear just to show that it's not at all hard to hold a staff stable in one hand. Like I also said, if you permit much more acrobatic tricks - like those a monk would be expected to do - more options open up.
It's vastly more reasonable than a hundred other non-magical things that are treated as perfectly normal in the game. It's a four-pound stick held in one hand. Why is that so inconceivable?
(As you can probably tell by my over-wordiness, I am enjoying myself 
)
Hey look.... you want to allow it.. go for it.
But you can also feel free to allow dual weilding greatswords, or jumping over buildings if you want. At some point, everyone draws a line as to what is feasible.
For me, there is also a distinct difference between something allowed as a special class ability, and something that happens by default. If there was some 12 level monk ability that allowed them to single-hand a quarterstaff.... that would be different. Just like I would understand a high level class ability that allowed someone to reload a handbow without a free hand.
But I put one handed quarterstaves in the same place as the one handed greatswords......
I like the idea of making it a two-handed weapon that does 1d4 when wielded one-handed. Gives the quarterstaff its unique niche without overshadowing every other simple melee weapon.
Personally, I'd like to see it two-handed, but with finesse.
The weapons chart in general is a mess, though.
Shillelagh is an interesting edge case in the one-handed staff logic - with a magical enchantment causing the staff to impart more force, I think it's more understandable that it could be dangerous even one-handed.
The 5e weapon chart is full of bugs, so I use my own modified chart. Here are the simple bludgeoning weapons.
Club: 1d4 bludgeoning, one-handed, light
Greatclub: 1d10 bludgeoning, two-handed, heavy
Quarterstaff: 1d4 bludgeoning, one-handed, versatile (1d6)
Mace: 1d6 bludgeoning, one-handed, versatile (1d8)
Here is some further information about these four weapons.
Club: Our baseline of comparison. It is esssentially a stick of hard wood.
Greatclub: A really big stick of hard wood. It weighs more (and hits harder) than a quarterstaff or a mace, and thus requires two hands and has the heavy property. Being a simple weapon, the greatclub is statistically inferior to greatsword or greataxe. Additionally, in my game, the Heavy property requires a Str score of 13, otherwise the character suffers Disadvantage.
Quarterstaff: A well-made staff hits harder and has greater reach and versatility than a basic club. It is intended to be wielded in two hands, but a character can feasibly deal out jabs, smacks, and pokes with one hand. Honestly, I never understood a 1d8 quarterstaff. Picture getting smacked by a quarterstaff, then imagine getting bludgeoned by a steel mace or hacked by a longsword. I bet my life savings you would rather get hit by the quarterstaff.
Mace: A mace has a weighty metal head at the end, so it hits harder than a club or a quarterstaff. A mace is still statistically inferior to a longsword though.
In my opinion the staff should be a finess weapon and the mace a versatile weapon, but untill WotC release an errata to fixed that you have to accept it, just like
leather armor +1 is just as good as a studded leather, but the leather armor+1 is incridebly more rare, more expensive, and in Adventure League rule, might even prevent you from getting an other magical item.
A Maul cost 10gp for 2d6 bludgeoning damage, compare to a greatsword at 50gp dealing 2d6 slashing damage. Remeber the skeletons (a common low level creature) are VULNERABLE to bludgeoning damage. While at my knowledge few creature are vulnerable to slashing or posses a resistance to bludgenoning but not to slashing, makng the bludgenoning type stronger then then slashing damage type, making the Maul a better weapon for 20% the price of a greatsword
Similar analysis comparing scimitar and shortsword (both finess, light 1d6 weapon)
etc...
equipment are NOT price based on there mechanical power, they are prices based on the actual work require to craft it.
Enchanting an armor is more difficult then simply putting studdes in it.
Crafting a good greatsword require more skill and time then putting together a rock and a branch to create a Maul
The curved blade of the scimitar require more work then the straight blade of the shortsword.
ect...
I would agree with the 1d4 when one handed idea. Puts it on the same level of a club or the haft of a polearm.
But to be honest, my clerics are probably going to use a mace anyway. Habits.
EsperOfNovaura wrote: