Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Oulak Feb 17, 2015 23:36:47	Long story short, there's a warlock character with the Dual Wielder feat that is fighting with a quarterstaff and a sickle (for thematic reasons). 4th edition allowed a staff implement to be used as a melee weapon like a quarterstaff, but I don't see any such allowances in print in 5e. I'm the DM, and I know I have full right to color the grey areas however I see fit, but I like to explore the consequences beforehand. Obviously the sickle would have to be sheathed in order to actually cast a spell (free hand required without the War Caster feat), but can you fine folks think of any problems that may arise? Feedback appreciated.
#2 Oriet Feb 18, 2015 1:00:19	First up, a quarterstaff is not able to work as an arcane focus.  A quarterstaff costs 2 sp, while an arcane focus staff costs 5 gp and is specially constructed to channel arcane power.   That said, I will direct you to page 147 of the PHB, specifically to improvised weapons.  To quote: "In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For exampl, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus."  This means that while a quarterstaff is not an arcane focus, there's no real reason you can't use an arcane focus staff as a quarterstaff, or an arcane focus rod as a club.   Personally I also like the idea of a wizard using a ritual knife as an arcane focus and as a dagger, though I would likely put its cost at 20 gp (and highly suggest they not throw it so as not to lose it).
#3 Goon-for-Hire Feb 18, 2015 3:34:28	I would allow an arcane focus staff to be used as a staff, but I wouldn't allow it to be used to attack twice in a round, as it is not shod or shaped like a quarterstaff.  Also, your wizard may really find himself regretting this strategy the first time they come up against a black pudding or grey ooze.
(Reply to #3) Clutchbone	I'd allow the quarterstaff to be used as an arcane focus for material components.   There's something else to keep in mind though besides needing a free hand for spells with somatic components: while sheathing (or drawing) a weapon can be done once per turn for free as part of an action, drawing (or sheathing) it a second time requires a separate action (PHB pg 190, 193).   Your warlock can stow away his or her sickle or quarterstaff as part of a spellcasting action, but then he or she won't be able to draw it again until their next turn. This is relevant for eldritch blast, which has [v] & [s] components and thus needs a free hand to cast
#5 Ranthalan Feb 18, 2015 7:48:01	I did allow a quarterstaff as an arcane focus.  I also warned the player it could still break or be damaged per our house rule.
#6 sirkaikillah11 Feb 18, 2015 10:26:40	I wouldn't let a normal quarterstaff as a staff focus. But I would allow a staff focus to be used as a quarter staff. it cost a lot more to make a staff focus than a simplequarter staff'
#7 Archon007 Feb 18, 2015 11:40:11	Oriet wrote:
#8 Oulak Feb 18, 2015 12:39:55	Oriet wrote:
#9 Ranthalan Feb 18, 2015 12:44:05	I allowed it because I'm not overly concerned with cost for a starting character.  I wouldn't allow an established character to buy a new focus for 2sp.    I'm not too much of a stickler for starting equipment.  If you can give me a reason to explain why you have something that also adds to the character, I'll allow it so long as it's not a blatent abuse.  That's how the bard ended up with a prized family heirloom lute for free.  It's well-used so its of no great value and it's not like he's going to sell it anyway.  This makes the story hooks for that object much more powerful than if the object had just been purchased as starting equipment.  I value that more than strict adherence to starting money rules.   As bawylie says, find ways to say yes to the player.  If it makes you feel better you can say yes, but that quarterstaff costs 5gp.
#10 Varden_Khol Feb 18, 2015 14:30:37	There's precedent for the Arcane Focus as quarterstaff argument as well. Plenty of the magic staffs in the DMG or published adventures state, "May be wielded as a Quarterstaff"
#11 Kayal Feb 18, 2015 15:24:22	The difference between 2 gp ans 5 gp is pretty minor in the grand scope. I don't think it would break anything if you allowed it. That being said, I generally make the character pay 5 gp for an arcane staff that can be used as a quarterstaff, rather than the other way around (for all of the reasons stated above).   I also allowed the Paladin/Sorcerer character in my campaign to pay 6 gp for a spear that functioned as a both an arcane focus and a divine focus. My reasoning was that an arcane staff is often topped with a stone or some other decorative item, so why couldn't it be topped with a holy symbol or a sharp tip? Or both, in this case. So, 5 gp for the focus plus 1 gp for the spear. Maybe I should have charged him 11 gp (5 for each focus) instead of 6 gp ... but I'm not really worried about a 5 gp difference. That's chump change.   Yes, there is an obvious benefit to having all that loaded into one item ... but not really. A quarterstaff and a spear do the same damage, anyway, and he easily could have painted a holy symbol onto his shield (which he does carry). So, end result? He got a 5 gp discount and got to do something that he thought was cool. In other words, it didn't break anything.
#12 Oulak Feb 18, 2015 19:01:10	I'm not at all concerned about the monetary economy; it's the action economy and ridiculous picture it paints if both a staff implement and quarterstaff are required. I'm not overly fond of a mechanical restriction having wierd narrative consequences. "Hold on mister ogre, let me pack my quarterstaff real quick so I can draw my spell staff and then...wait...I just sheathed my sickle! D'oh!"   Although being known across the province as "Twostaves" may have certain courting benefits.
#13 Devils-Advocate Feb 18, 2015 22:37:16	Clutchbone wrote:
#14 cowleymen Feb 19, 2015 1:48:10	Devils-Advocate wrote: