Sometimes I'm baffled by how far people will try to look at ultra specific wording to affect rulings in a game where the DM literally just makes everything up on the fly. You don't gain benefit from Duellist if you are holding another weapon in your other weapon. A staff is a weapon, whether you call it a quarter staff or a staff. Bear in mind when applying your thinking that under the Monk class, you're specifically allowed to rename weapons to whatever you want and they are still weapons. If your monk calls his offhand weapon a Moon Pie that doesn't change the fact that it's actually a dagger. The game rules are designed around people applying good sense to them (because DnD is a game of infinite possibilities) and not rules lawyers.
If you are holding a staff in your second hand, you are holding a weapon in that hand. It's clearly a weapon. You know it's a weapon, because if you were disarmed of your sword, you would wield the staff. You even reference Gandalf in the LOTR movies, who we see whacking orcs with it... as a weapon. If you hit someone with it, everyone would say "They hit that guy with a weapon," not "they hit that gut with a six foot long wooden arcane focus." If you made your arcane focus a "four foot long metal blade" then it's a sword even if you are calling it by a different name.
Use common sense for these things. The rules are there to help you tell magnificent stories.
...
The point is that things that the game makes a mechanical distinction about are distinct. Can I call my shortsword a greatsword? Then I shouldn't call my staff a quarterstaff. Sure the game is about story telling but if you don't want mechanics in your games, there are other RPGs out there.
And people come to the rules and game mechanics forms for rules answers, not fluffy feel good answers to their questions. That is why we try to look at the actual rules to come up with our answers.
Well, since staves are a straigh branch of a wood-type, they can be considered as 3rd-leg, or a comodine when you have any of your legs injured severedly, and your movement speed is around 5 feet per turn.
If a staff can be tunned, ( like if the cars/motorbikes/etcetera ) then why not applying something stetical that could allow another feat. or other elses.
Duelist only requires you to be wielding only 1 weapon, it doesn't restrict you from benefiting from it while holding a weapon you are not using in your other hand. I said as much 4 days ago.
This is the correct answer. Wielding a weapon is using the weapon. As long as you do not swing the staff at anything (as a bonus action), dueling fighting style should be in effect. if you ever swing the staff as a bonus action, dueling would then be inactive. the only time I would have heartburn is if someone tried to rules lawyer things and swing the staff after they had already missed with their weapon attack to try and salvage some damage out of the turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sometimes I'm baffled by how far people will try to look at ultra specific wording to affect rulings in a game where the DM literally just makes everything up on the fly. You don't gain benefit from Duellist if you are holding another weapon in your other weapon. A staff is a weapon, whether you call it a quarter staff or a staff. Bear in mind when applying your thinking that under the Monk class, you're specifically allowed to rename weapons to whatever you want and they are still weapons. If your monk calls his offhand weapon a Moon Pie that doesn't change the fact that it's actually a dagger. The game rules are designed around people applying good sense to them (because DnD is a game of infinite possibilities) and not rules lawyers.
If you are holding a staff in your second hand, you are holding a weapon in that hand. It's clearly a weapon. You know it's a weapon, because if you were disarmed of your sword, you would wield the staff. You even reference Gandalf in the LOTR movies, who we see whacking orcs with it... as a weapon. If you hit someone with it, everyone would say "They hit that guy with a weapon," not "they hit that gut with a six foot long wooden arcane focus." If you made your arcane focus a "four foot long metal blade" then it's a sword even if you are calling it by a different name.
Use common sense for these things. The rules are there to help you tell magnificent stories.
...
The point is that things that the game makes a mechanical distinction about are distinct. Can I call my shortsword a greatsword? Then I shouldn't call my staff a quarterstaff. Sure the game is about story telling but if you don't want mechanics in your games, there are other RPGs out there.
And people come to the rules and game mechanics forms for rules answers, not fluffy feel good answers to their questions. That is why we try to look at the actual rules to come up with our answers.
In this case, they have clarified, that unless otherwise stated, arcane focus staffs are to be treated as a quarterstaff for melee purposes. A focus staff is a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff is not a focus staff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The point is that things that the game makes a mechanical distinction about are distinct. Can I call my shortsword a greatsword? Then I shouldn't call my staff a quarterstaff. Sure the game is about story telling but if you don't want mechanics in your games, there are other RPGs out there.
And people come to the rules and game mechanics forms for rules answers, not fluffy feel good answers to their questions. That is why we try to look at the actual rules to come up with our answers.
In this case, they have clarified, that unless otherwise stated, arcane focus staffs are to be treated as a quarterstaff for melee purposes. A focus staff is a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff is not a focus staff.
There is a difference between how you wrote the rule and how it is stated:
Unless a staff’s description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.
My entire point is that the wording matters; this sentence is entirely consistent with treating a staff as an improvised weapon (as well as simply calling every staff a quarterstaff) and therefore is up to your DM whether to always treat it as a weapon or weather to treat it as an improvised weapon (i.e. an object that you make an improvised weapon attack with, and therefore not always a weapon). It is also a sentence about categories of magical items, so again it is up to your DM to decide to apply this sentence to mundane focii.
I will also again point out that calling any two similar seeming but mechanically different things equivalent is flat out wrong. I will finally also point out that calling a staff always a weapon invalidates your other post that says that you can decide whether Duelist applies. Holding and wielding a weapon must be close enough to not make rules that count the number of weapons that you hold not break. If i can just turn off "wielding" while still holding a second sword, that seems awfully unintended to me.
Also, according to the DMG, p 140: Unless a staff's description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.
So, it's only up to the DM as much as everything is up to the DM. The word, as written is clear, and not debateable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I did read what you said. You are inherently wrong. A staff IS a quarter staff. A quarterstaff is not a staff. It's like with real weapons; M16s are all AR-15s. Not all AR-15s have the refinements required to ALSO be an M16.
According to the rules (I even gave you the page number), it is NOT up to the DM. It is not an improvised weapon, ever. It is exactly what the rules in the DMG say it is: a quarterstaff, unless the items description says otherwise. Let me put it this way: What part of "a staff can be used as a quarterstaff" sounds as though it is open to interpretation?
As for the second part, let me link you the definition of "wield": to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/wield
So, if you do not handle or employ actively, you are not wielding the staff. I didn't make up the definition, I just read it and provided it for you. Again, the power does exactly what it says it does, and if you are not swinging the weapon actively, you are not wielding it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You can make your argument, but that doesn't make it the only valid interpretation:
Your example is literally backwards: in the real world, staff is the general category and quarterstaff is the specific one.
Let me put it this way: What part of "a screwdriver can be used as a hammer" turns a screwdriver in to a hammer?
And I still have a real problem with being able to decide on the fly whether a weapon counts as wielded when it could affect whether that weapon counts for certain mechanical effects. I don't think any DM worth their salt would let you hold two swords and claim the bonus of Duelist fighting style.
Since there is ambiguity, this one is for DM interpretation.
You can make your argument, but that doesn't make it the only valid interpretation:
Your example is literally backwards: in the real world, staff is the general category and quarterstaff is the specific one.
Let me put it this way: What part of "a screwdriver can be used as a hammer" turns a screwdriver in to a hammer?
And I still have a real problem with being able to decide on the fly whether a weapon counts as wielded when it could affect whether that weapon counts for certain mechanical effects. I don't think any DM worth their salt would let you hold two swords and claim the bonus of Duelist fighting style.
Since there is ambiguity, this one is for DM interpretation.
I think that the simplest way to adjudicate the dueling style vs two weapon fighting style is to rule that both can't be applied in the same round. The entire round is only 6 seconds long. Most characters only get one action per turn. If that action is used for a dueling style attack, then they are foregoing the bonus action opportunity afforded by two-weapon fighting because it conflicts with the mechanics of dueling style. For consistency, if they manage to get a second action, the limitation still applies.
There is no ambiguity. The rule literally states that a staff is treated as a quarterstaff. The rule does exactly what it says it does. It's spelled out for you, very clearly. It's not a screw driver, it's a staff being used as a staff. It works as a staff. Let me past the exact rule for you since you seem to be unwilling to go and read it yourself. Again, there is no ambiguity here. There's nothing for the DM to decide. A staff can be used as a quarterstaff. Period. End of story. That is what the rule says. It's not an improvised weapon, it's not DM discretion, it can be used as a quarterstaff. It is a d6 weapon, d8 when used two handed. It is clear, it is definitive.
A magic staff is about 5 or 6 feet long. Staffs vary widely in appearance: some are of nearly equal diameter throughout and smooth, others are gnarled and twisted, some are made of wood, and others are composed of polished metal or crystal. Depending on the material, a staff weighs between 2 and 7 pounds.
Unless a staff’s description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.
A focus staff is a specialized quarterstaff that serves as an arcane or druidic focus. That's why you can't take any old staff and use it as a focus. The focus has everything that is required to meet the definition of a quarterstaff. It's why a focus staff is more expensive than a mundane melee weapon only quarterstaff.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I'm sick of getting notified of this argument. First, there are couple of points to debate about because the rules are not written as clearly as they should be. The main point of contention is usually that the rule is written in the DMG with magic items and not in the PHB with spellcasting foci. SA has specified that it is meant to apply to non-magic foci as well, but SAC is not RAW and RAW is still unclear.
You can make your argument, but that doesn't make it the only valid interpretation:
Your example is literally backwards: in the real world, staff is the general category and quarterstaff is the specific one.
Let me put it this way: What part of "a screwdriver can be used as a hammer" turns a screwdriver in to a hammer?
And I still have a real problem with being able to decide on the fly whether a weapon counts as wielded when it could affect whether that weapon counts for certain mechanical effects. I don't think any DM worth their salt would let you hold two swords and claim the bonus of Duelist fighting style.
Since there is ambiguity, this one is for DM interpretation.
Real world example doesn't really matter, this is game mechanics.
That example isn't really accurate to the situation. It would be more accurate to compare a framing hammer being used as a claw hammer if we are using tools.
What if I were holding one sword upside down by its blade? Would that count as wielding? Out of an infinite number of ways to hold something usually only 2 are effectively wielding it. The same is true for a staff, if your grip is near the top, that isn't effective for striking. And I have seen SA rulings that allow munchkins to use shields as an improvised weapon while benefiting from AC and dueling, this is not worse.
And of course, as always, the DM has the final say in any rule interpretation, even if it goes against SA or the mass consensus.
And I completely disagree that that line is referring to improvised weapon.
So when trying to make a common sense kind of ruling like this, let us all recall that dungeons& dragons only exists because JRR Tolkien wrote the Hobbit and Lord of the rings series. In that series, gandalf uses his staff as both a focus and a weapon. This is both written in the books and it is in the movies for those of you that don't read 😁
The point is that things that the game makes a mechanical distinction about are distinct. Can I call my shortsword a greatsword? Then I shouldn't call my staff a quarterstaff. Sure the game is about story telling but if you don't want mechanics in your games, there are other RPGs out there.
And people come to the rules and game mechanics forms for rules answers, not fluffy feel good answers to their questions. That is why we try to look at the actual rules to come up with our answers.
Well, since staves are a straigh branch of a wood-type, they can be considered as 3rd-leg, or a comodine when you have any of your legs injured severedly, and your movement speed is around 5 feet per turn.
If a staff can be tunned, ( like if the cars/motorbikes/etcetera ) then why not applying something stetical that could allow another feat. or other elses.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
This is the correct answer. Wielding a weapon is using the weapon. As long as you do not swing the staff at anything (as a bonus action), dueling fighting style should be in effect. if you ever swing the staff as a bonus action, dueling would then be inactive. the only time I would have heartburn is if someone tried to rules lawyer things and swing the staff after they had already missed with their weapon attack to try and salvage some damage out of the turn.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
In this case, they have clarified, that unless otherwise stated, arcane focus staffs are to be treated as a quarterstaff for melee purposes. A focus staff is a quarterstaff, but a quarterstaff is not a focus staff.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
There is a difference between how you wrote the rule and how it is stated:
My entire point is that the wording matters; this sentence is entirely consistent with treating a staff as an improvised weapon (as well as simply calling every staff a quarterstaff) and therefore is up to your DM whether to always treat it as a weapon or weather to treat it as an improvised weapon (i.e. an object that you make an improvised weapon attack with, and therefore not always a weapon). It is also a sentence about categories of magical items, so again it is up to your DM to decide to apply this sentence to mundane focii.
I will also again point out that calling any two similar seeming but mechanically different things equivalent is flat out wrong. I will finally also point out that calling a staff always a weapon invalidates your other post that says that you can decide whether Duelist applies. Holding and wielding a weapon must be close enough to not make rules that count the number of weapons that you hold not break. If i can just turn off "wielding" while still holding a second sword, that seems awfully unintended to me.
According to the designers: https://twitter.com/GamerJosh/status/509454115861434368
Also, according to the DMG, p 140: Unless a staff's description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.
So, it's only up to the DM as much as everything is up to the DM. The word, as written is clear, and not debateable.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
...
If you aren't going to read what I wrote, I don't know why you bother to reply. Using a screwdriver as a hammer does not make it a hammer.
I did read what you said. You are inherently wrong. A staff IS a quarter staff. A quarterstaff is not a staff. It's like with real weapons; M16s are all AR-15s. Not all AR-15s have the refinements required to ALSO be an M16.
According to the rules (I even gave you the page number), it is NOT up to the DM. It is not an improvised weapon, ever. It is exactly what the rules in the DMG say it is: a quarterstaff, unless the items description says otherwise. Let me put it this way: What part of "a staff can be used as a quarterstaff" sounds as though it is open to interpretation?
As for the second part, let me link you the definition of "wield": to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/wield
So, if you do not handle or employ actively, you are not wielding the staff. I didn't make up the definition, I just read it and provided it for you. Again, the power does exactly what it says it does, and if you are not swinging the weapon actively, you are not wielding it.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
You can make your argument, but that doesn't make it the only valid interpretation:
Since there is ambiguity, this one is for DM interpretation.
I think that the simplest way to adjudicate the dueling style vs two weapon fighting style is to rule that both can't be applied in the same round. The entire round is only 6 seconds long. Most characters only get one action per turn. If that action is used for a dueling style attack, then they are foregoing the bonus action opportunity afforded by two-weapon fighting because it conflicts with the mechanics of dueling style. For consistency, if they manage to get a second action, the limitation still applies.
There is no ambiguity. The rule literally states that a staff is treated as a quarterstaff. The rule does exactly what it says it does. It's spelled out for you, very clearly. It's not a screw driver, it's a staff being used as a staff. It works as a staff. Let me past the exact rule for you since you seem to be unwilling to go and read it yourself. Again, there is no ambiguity here. There's nothing for the DM to decide. A staff can be used as a quarterstaff. Period. End of story. That is what the rule says. It's not an improvised weapon, it's not DM discretion, it can be used as a quarterstaff. It is a d6 weapon, d8 when used two handed. It is clear, it is definitive.
A magic staff is about 5 or 6 feet long. Staffs vary widely in appearance: some are of nearly equal diameter throughout and smooth, others are gnarled and twisted, some are made of wood, and others are composed of polished metal or crystal. Depending on the material, a staff weighs between 2 and 7 pounds.
Unless a staff’s description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff.
A focus staff is a specialized quarterstaff that serves as an arcane or druidic focus. That's why you can't take any old staff and use it as a focus. The focus has everything that is required to meet the definition of a quarterstaff. It's why a focus staff is more expensive than a mundane melee weapon only quarterstaff.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
And of course, as always, the DM has the final say in any rule interpretation, even if it goes against SA or the mass consensus.
And I completely disagree that that line is referring to improvised weapon.
So when trying to make a common sense kind of ruling like this, let us all recall that dungeons& dragons only exists because JRR Tolkien wrote the Hobbit and Lord of the rings series. In that series, gandalf uses his staff as both a focus and a weapon. This is both written in the books and it is in the movies for those of you that don't read 😁
Per https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#OfficialRulings, the SAC is made of official rulings. It's as RAW as anything else published by WotC.