Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Undrhil Aug 26, 2014 7:27:44	Would I be able to use an Arcane Focus: Staff as a Quarterstaff?
#2 2Chlorobutanal Aug 26, 2014 8:05:51	Strictly speaking, a quarterstaff and arcane focus: staff are distinct items with different costs.  However, they share the same weight, which may imply that they are of the same general shape and balance.   Absolute worst case, I would say a staff focus could be an improvised weapon, albeit possibly without proficiency bonus- depending on the DM's call.  Best case, it's a functional quarterstaff.  I believe some magic item staffs that appear in adventures explicitly state that they may be used as quarterstaff weapons.   I'd probably allow a staff focus to be used as a quarterstaff. I would not allow the opposite, however.  As a focus costs more gold to buy than a regular quarterstaff, I would say that any old quarterstaff cannot serve as an arcane focus.
(Reply to #2) Undrhil	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#4 Walstafa Aug 26, 2014 8:25:27	In practical terms, I'd probably make the player pay both costs, even if it's only one staff. The Arcane focus costs are for the runes and attunement required to use it as an arcane tool, and the quarterstaff cost is for the reinforcement and treatment that will allow it to be used as a weapon without ruining it as a focus.
(Reply to #4) Undrhil	Walstafa wrote:
#6 2Chlorobutanal Aug 26, 2014 9:19:54	I think it's only 2 silver pieces, not gold, for a quarterstaff- final price for the composite item would be 5.2 gold.
#7 NyteWalker Aug 26, 2014 10:11:59	Yeah, one of my players is going Eldrich Knight and wanted to know if I'd allow an Arcane Focus: Staff to work as a quarterstaff. Personally, I don't see the need to pay the extra 2sp, as a quarterstaff is essentially just a stick. Sure, some people may have a finely crafted/balanced stick, and that might cost money but at the end of the day a stick is a stick.    So, I'd say if you are already paying 5gp for a stick with arcane runes, it should still be an effctive stick without paying an additional 2sp. This is just my opinion, though.
#8 Walstafa Aug 26, 2014 14:38:24	NyteWalker wrote:
#9 BTShire Aug 26, 2014 17:08:58	I would make a new item called a "Gandalf Staff" that could act as both, and charge maybe 25gp for it.   Not really serious.  But kinda.
#10 JRutterbush Aug 26, 2014 19:20:48	The rules for improvised weapons specifically state that if an improvised weapon looks like a weapon that's already there, you should just use that weapon's stats, including proficiency. Using a staff focus as a quarterstaff is probably the absolute closest an improvised weapon and the weapon it looks like could ever possibly be. So while I'd say that a quarterstaff wouldn't be able to count as an arcane focus (though I'd still personally allow the extra gold to be paid to turn it into one: carving runes into it, and so on), you can definitely use a staff focus as if it were a quarterstaff (including using your proficiency bonus if you're proficient), unless your DM deliberately rules otherwise.
#11 bishopcruz Aug 27, 2014 8:41:35	What I would do is make the Arcane focus staff be like a quarterstaff, but lose the versatile option, you can bonk people on the head with it just fine, but it's not balanced properly to be as good as a regular quarterstaff. The Warlock an upcoming game asked me about this, and seemed happy with that result.
(Reply to #11) NyteWalker	bishopcruz wrote:
#13 KarlB Aug 27, 2014 9:24:13	Hmmm ... I'd say it's more of a DM decision that a clear cut ruling. That being said, it you really want to be a stickler, remember that arcane focuses are all covered in runes and inherently magical items. They may break if used to hit people or parry a blade.   If you *really* want to play it safe, you can include the staff as part of your story background and claim that it was a specially designed quarterstaff converted into a magical focus item.   But again, that's a conversation you want to have with your DM.
(Reply to #13) NyteWalker	KarlB wrote:
#15 IxidorRS Aug 27, 2014 9:31:56	JRutterbush wrote:
#16 Kalani Aug 27, 2014 11:25:42	Lets's answer this question logically.   Logical Statement An Arcane Focus is not a weapon. If used as a weapon, it uses the rules for Improvised weapons (p147-148) Improvised Weapons (p147) states: In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. An arcane focus (Staff) is similar to a quarterstaff. Therefore, an arcane focus (staff) can be used as a quarterstaff. By extension: An arcane focus (staff) has the following weapon properties: d6 damage, versatile (d8).  Put simply, an arcane focus (staff) is also an improvised quarterstaff.   The fact that both have identical weight is circumstantial and irrelevant (an objects weight does not change simply because it is being used as an improvised weapon).   The reverse is not true for the following reasons:   There are no rules for improvised arcane foci. The Improvised weapon rules would treat a quarterstaff as a quarterstaff. Therefore, a quarterstaff cannot be treated as an arcane focus. Hope this helps
#17 shivafang Aug 27, 2014 11:21:42	At my tables I allow both the Arcane Focus:  Staff and the Druidic Focus:  Wooden Staff to be used a s a quarterstaff.  I also allow the Arcane and Druidic focus to be the same staff if it is made of wood.   Druidic Focus:  Wooden Staff works well with the shilelagh spell.   These are my rulings, and I don't expect them to apply to any table I play at, since they are not supported by the rules as written.
#18 Kalani Aug 27, 2014 11:36:28	shivafang wrote:
(Reply to #18) NN1	Kalani wrote:
#20 Kalani Aug 27, 2014 14:06:54	NN1 wrote:
#21 Undrhil Aug 27, 2014 18:17:24	You guys are reading too much into this.   Let's stop and think for a minute.  You are assuming that, somewhere .. there is a Wizard that wants to get into melee with a bad guy and *grab* them.  To what end?  So he can be pummelled into paste the next round?  I don't think many Wizards are going to look at Tavern Brawler and think "Ooo!  I'm going to give up a point of INT for *that*!"
#22 Kalani Aug 27, 2014 19:34:15	Undrhil wrote:
(Reply to #20) 2Chlorobutanal	Kalani wrote:
#24 Kalani Aug 27, 2014 22:27:25	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#25 shivafang Aug 27, 2014 22:37:01	Undrhil wrote:
(Reply to #24) 2Chlorobutanal	Kalani wrote:
#27 Kalani Aug 28, 2014 2:33:03	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #27) reddaemon	Kalani wrote:
#29 shivafang Aug 28, 2014 11:13:29	reddaemon wrote:
#30 Kalani Aug 28, 2014 12:03:16	reddaemon wrote:
#31 Danny_Montanny Aug 28, 2014 14:31:38	It like when a player wanted to use a sythe last night and use the greatsword stats, because 2d6...   He argued, a he's won't to do, so I showed him the Improvised Weapons rule. He quickly agreed that it was most similar to a glaive when I told him he could choose that or 1d4 without proficiency.   Choose your reasoning depending on the player. When nothing in, "just look at it, how does that look like a greatsword more than a glaive?" would convince him, I had to go the mechanical rout.
#32 Danny_Montanny Aug 28, 2014 14:30:21	With that in mind, what's the opinion on improvised, or "re-skinned", weapons used with class abilities and feats?   Should a Fighter with Heavy Weapon Fighting, Polearm Master, and Heavy Weapon Master be able to use the sythe above in conjunction with those abilities?   I'm inclined to say yes, but nothing in RAW supports it, as the improvised weapons rules only specicially mention proficiency. Possibly just HWF and HWM because those rules state they just need the heavy and two-handed property, but PM specifically required the weapons listed? What do you guys think?
#33 shivafang Aug 28, 2014 14:44:13	Danny_Montanny wrote:
(Reply to #33) Danny_Montanny	shivafang wrote:
#35 shivafang Aug 28, 2014 15:52:04	Danny_Montanny wrote:
(Reply to #30) 2Chlorobutanal	Kalani wrote: