I’m playing a Goliath Druid named Hygalec of the Mountain.
As a Goliath, he has the trait Powerful Build. This trait makes his size increase by 1 (Medium to large in this case) when determining carrying capacity, pushing, or dragging. Now in this campaign my dm is including actions like carrying large items/people. So this begs the question, can I dual wield versatile weapons such as quarterstaffs (seeing as they can technically be wielded with one hand)? Thanks to anyone who answers.
Two-weapon fighting only works with light (one-handed) melee weapons. Your carrying capacity has nothing to do with it. You'd need the Dual Wielder feat to remove the light property requirement. Without the feat, you can still choose to wield a quarterstaff in each hand, but you won't get any additional attacks from doing so, and you could've used a shield or a stronger two-handed weapon instead.
Anyone can use the quarterstaff one handed for 1d6 instead of 1d8. With the Dual Weilder feat, anyone can use one in each hand. The only thing is, when you do that, you lose the versatility that makes Versitile weapons worth while. You're stuck with the 1d6 one handed damage.
Anyone can use the quarterstaff one handed for 1d6 instead of 1d8. With the Dual Weilder feat, anyone can use one in each hand. The only thing is, when you do that, you lose the versatility that makes Versitile weapons worth while. You're stuck with the 1d6 one handed damage.
Although, technically with the bonus attack potential damage is now 2d6 instead of 1d8, so it does improve.
Personally, still better to dual wield longswords or rapiers for 2d8 and less ridiculous to imagine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Something to note: Powerful Build does not actually change your size in any way. You are still a medium-sized creature, so you have exactly the same options as every other medium-sized creature when it comes to two-weapon fighting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Anyone can use the quarterstaff one handed for 1d6 instead of 1d8. With the Dual Weilder feat, anyone can use one in each hand. The only thing is, when you do that, you lose the versatility that makes Versitile weapons worth while. You're stuck with the 1d6 one handed damage.
Although, technically with the bonus attack potential damage is now 2d6 instead of 1d8, so it does improve.
Personally, still better to dual wield longswords or rapiers for 2d8 and less ridiculous to imagine.
Even in this case, you would be dealing average damage of 6 (2d6) instead of 4 (1d8) damage. That is only an extra 2 points of damage, and you lose your weapons versatility. Furthermore, as you don't have a free hand, you need to drop one of your weapons to take healing potions or cast spells or anything like that. You then need to pick it back up again, wasting bonus actions at best or a whole action at worst (depending on your DM). So in my opinion, despite the slightly increased damage, you are worse off by trying to dual wield.
You'd be far better taking a weapon like a Scimitar and adding your DEX modifier (which should be pretty decent for a Druid.) Keeping one hand free for healing potions, spells and cantrips.
Rogue, with a sneak attack, is the only time that I personally think dual-wielding is worth it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Even in this case, you would be dealing average damage of 6 (2d6) instead of 4 (1d8) damage. That is only an extra 2 points of damage, and you lose your weapons versatility. Furthermore, as you don't have a free hand, you need to drop one of your weapons to take healing potions or cast spells or anything like that. You then need to pick it back up again, wasting bonus actions at best or a whole action at worst (depending on your DM). So in my opinion, despite the slightly increased damage, you are worse off by trying to dual wield.
You'd be far better taking a weapon like a Scimitar and adding your DEX modifier (which should be pretty decent for a Druid.) Keeping one hand free for healing potions, spells and cantrips.
Rogue, with a sneak attack, is the only time that I personally think dual-wielding is worth it.
Sort of. You can hold two weapons in one hand: you just won't be using them for anything. So, on the turn you want to chug a potion or cast a spell you use your free action (yes, remember you get one of these every turn) to shift one weapon to the other hand - or crook of your arm, or into a sheath, etc, and use your action to chug potion/cast spell. On your next turn you use the free action to move the weapon back and can make your action and bonus action attacks as normal. There's no need to "drop" a weapon nor do you lose any action economy. This is why you get a free action every turn. It does present inconvenience and the shifted/sheathed/dropped weapon or shield is not in effect until your next turn which is bad if it's a shield, can't take opportunity attacks, etc. Unless casting a spell as a Warcaster, (feat) of course.
However, I do think Druids are not best for dual-wielding. You have limited weapon options and you are better off using animal forms and spells than weapons or making use of Cantrips. You are much better off using the staff two handed than dual-wielding two staves, unless you have Warcaster. Given that you already need the Dual-Wielder feat to make it work already, this is a heavy investment in feats for something that will make your Druid less effective in combat. Even if we ignore the realistic absurdity of somebody twirling two quarterstaffs around - they are between 5 to 8 feet in length so trying to use two is going to be a nonsensical visual in the mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Even in this case, you would be dealing average damage of 6 (2d6) instead of 4 (1d8) damage. That is only an extra 2 points of damage, and you lose your weapons versatility. Furthermore, as you don't have a free hand, you need to drop one of your weapons to take healing potions or cast spells or anything like that. You then need to pick it back up again, wasting bonus actions at best or a whole action at worst (depending on your DM). So in my opinion, despite the slightly increased damage, you are worse off by trying to dual wield.
You'd be far better taking a weapon like a Scimitar and adding your DEX modifier (which should be pretty decent for a Druid.) Keeping one hand free for healing potions, spells and cantrips.
Rogue, with a sneak attack, is the only time that I personally think dual-wielding is worth it.
Sort of. You can hold two weapons in one hand: you just won't be using them for anything. So, on the turn you want to chug a potion or cast a spell you use your free action (yes, remember you get one of these every turn)
That is true, I was not thinking about free actions, but yes, free actions would make this much more viable. Even if the mechanics of the game allow this though, just the thought of somebody doing this is bizarre. I am not saying that it shouldn't happen if that is how the player wants to play their Druid for roleplay or story reasons. Only that it would look strange to have a character constantly juggling their weapons like this.
Then again, I have no room to talk. While making my latest Druid character, I sacrificed the Half-Elf skill versatility to take Elf Weapon Training. Just so I could take advantage of Faerie Fire, by using a shortbow, marking my targets and keeping out of melee range.
Well, just a casual search on the internet, dual bo staff fighting doesn't seem to be a thing beyond performance. (And now I wrote that, someone will prove me wrong)
Thematically, its more of a monk thing; Druids are casters really.
Oh...and its technically not a Free Action; that's earlier editions. The mechanics above are accurate though, but it technically under the section: Other Activity on Your Turn which is wordier than Free Action. but you also can do more than one thing for free, just only one can interact with an object.
Personally, still better to dual wield longswords or rapiers for 2d8 and less ridiculous to imagine.
Not by much. Double rapiers is pretty silly since they don't have a cutting edge so they'd be rubbish at tackling multiple opponents and not much better than just 1 rapier at poking 1 opponent. Two longswords is more reasonable but two one-handed swords would be easier to handle (and easier to take out of a sheathe).
Well, just a casual search on the internet, dual bo staff fighting doesn't seem to be a thing beyond performance. (And now I wrote that, someone will prove me wrong)
It's not so much that it can't be done, just that it's harder than using two shorter sticks (clubs in D&D terms) that are easier to handle. You can't even "sheathe" a quarterstaff in any normal sense of the word; pole weapons were just carried by hand because there's no convenient way to strap them to your body.
As far as I can tell D&D goes more for pop-culture/rule-of-cool dual wielding than an anything resembling historical dual wielding. The common trend seemed to be one long weapon for attacking and a shorter, easier to handle weapon for blocking attacks and as a backup if you get into a very close-range situation or your main weapon gets disarmed. But the rules don't give you any advantage whatsoever for going that route; you're always better off going with two of the hardest-hitting weapons you can get away with.
as a DM, depending on their weight, (much harder to hold an iron stick that a wood one) i'd rule you could wield them both like bastard swords with a high enough strength, space, and practice., unless you can demonstrate to me how they would work otherwise.
lke if you can go outside, with two staffs, and wield them efficiently, fine. i will then admit its practical.
As far as I can tell D&D goes more for pop-culture/rule-of-cool dual wielding than an anything resembling historical dual wielding. The common trend seemed to be one long weapon for attacking and a shorter, easier to handle weapon for blocking attacks and as a backup if you get into a very close-range situation or your main weapon gets disarmed. But the rules don't give you any advantage whatsoever for going that route; you're always better off going with two of the hardest-hitting weapons you can get away with.
Mostly. Any advantage requires training. For the game that is reflected as class abilities or feats.
But you dont see proper rapier / main - gauche pairings for western style. Eastern style as you said two clubs or kamas sure. Katana and wakisazi (sp) were not dual wielded, and katanas were almost always used with two hands.
Fantasy looks cooler, and animes do ridiculous things. So hey, look cool. Gandalf used a sword and staff...so can you!
In combination with the shillelagh, a Druid cantrip, each quarterstaff would deal 1d8 totaling 2d8 plus my spell modifier, for an average of 8+spm+proficiency because Druid. The quarterstaffs also count as magical weapons then. This is done as a bonus action btw.
In combination with the shillelagh, a Druid cantrip, each quarterstaff would deal 1d8 totaling 2d8 plus my spell modifier, for an average of 8+spm+proficiency because Druid. The quarterstaffs also count as magical weapons then. This is done as a bonus action btw.
Even though it changes the weapon attack ability, you still don't get to add it to damage with your off hand attack without the two weapon fighting style.
You wouldn't be able to use the second attack the same turn you used your bonis action to cast the spell.
Why would you get to add proficiency modifier to damage? What feature is granting that?
Also, the average of 2d8 is 9.
Over all, dual weilding requires a feat to add 1d6 of damage (and 1 AC) to each turn after the first. It is a pretty heavy investment for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’m playing a Goliath Druid named Hygalec of the Mountain.
As a Goliath, he has the trait Powerful Build. This trait makes his size increase by 1 (Medium to large in this case) when determining carrying capacity, pushing, or dragging. Now in this campaign my dm is including actions like carrying large items/people. So this begs the question, can I dual wield versatile weapons such as quarterstaffs (seeing as they can technically be wielded with one hand)? Thanks to anyone who answers.
Two-weapon fighting only works with light (one-handed) melee weapons. Your carrying capacity has nothing to do with it. You'd need the Dual Wielder feat to remove the light property requirement. Without the feat, you can still choose to wield a quarterstaff in each hand, but you won't get any additional attacks from doing so, and you could've used a shield or a stronger two-handed weapon instead.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
So essentially: only the same way medium creatures can dual wield quraterstaffs.
Related: If you are large, do quarterstaffs become eigthstaffs?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Medium quarter staff is an eighthstaff to a large creature. A large quarterstaff is a halfstaff to a medium creature.
Math humor.
Anyone can use the quarterstaff one handed for 1d6 instead of 1d8. With the Dual Weilder feat, anyone can use one in each hand. The only thing is, when you do that, you lose the versatility that makes Versitile weapons worth while. You're stuck with the 1d6 one handed damage.
Although, technically with the bonus attack potential damage is now 2d6 instead of 1d8, so it does improve.
Personally, still better to dual wield longswords or rapiers for 2d8 and less ridiculous to imagine.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Something to note: Powerful Build does not actually change your size in any way. You are still a medium-sized creature, so you have exactly the same options as every other medium-sized creature when it comes to two-weapon fighting.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Even in this case, you would be dealing average damage of 6 (2d6) instead of 4 (1d8) damage. That is only an extra 2 points of damage, and you lose your weapons versatility. Furthermore, as you don't have a free hand, you need to drop one of your weapons to take healing potions or cast spells or anything like that. You then need to pick it back up again, wasting bonus actions at best or a whole action at worst (depending on your DM). So in my opinion, despite the slightly increased damage, you are worse off by trying to dual wield.
You'd be far better taking a weapon like a Scimitar and adding your DEX modifier (which should be pretty decent for a Druid.) Keeping one hand free for healing potions, spells and cantrips.
Rogue, with a sneak attack, is the only time that I personally think dual-wielding is worth it.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Sort of. You can hold two weapons in one hand: you just won't be using them for anything. So, on the turn you want to chug a potion or cast a spell you use your free action (yes, remember you get one of these every turn) to shift one weapon to the other hand - or crook of your arm, or into a sheath, etc, and use your action to chug potion/cast spell. On your next turn you use the free action to move the weapon back and can make your action and bonus action attacks as normal. There's no need to "drop" a weapon nor do you lose any action economy. This is why you get a free action every turn. It does present inconvenience and the shifted/sheathed/dropped weapon or shield is not in effect until your next turn which is bad if it's a shield, can't take opportunity attacks, etc. Unless casting a spell as a Warcaster, (feat) of course.
However, I do think Druids are not best for dual-wielding. You have limited weapon options and you are better off using animal forms and spells than weapons or making use of Cantrips. You are much better off using the staff two handed than dual-wielding two staves, unless you have Warcaster. Given that you already need the Dual-Wielder feat to make it work already, this is a heavy investment in feats for something that will make your Druid less effective in combat. Even if we ignore the realistic absurdity of somebody twirling two quarterstaffs around - they are between 5 to 8 feet in length so trying to use two is going to be a nonsensical visual in the mind.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
That is true, I was not thinking about free actions, but yes, free actions would make this much more viable. Even if the mechanics of the game allow this though, just the thought of somebody doing this is bizarre. I am not saying that it shouldn't happen if that is how the player wants to play their Druid for roleplay or story reasons. Only that it would look strange to have a character constantly juggling their weapons like this.
Then again, I have no room to talk. While making my latest Druid character, I sacrificed the Half-Elf skill versatility to take Elf Weapon Training. Just so I could take advantage of Faerie Fire, by using a shortbow, marking my targets and keeping out of melee range.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Well, just a casual search on the internet, dual bo staff fighting doesn't seem to be a thing beyond performance. (And now I wrote that, someone will prove me wrong)
Thematically, its more of a monk thing; Druids are casters really.
Oh...and its technically not a Free Action; that's earlier editions. The mechanics above are accurate though, but it technically under the section: Other Activity on Your Turn which is wordier than Free Action. but you also can do more than one thing for free, just only one can interact with an object.
Not by much. Double rapiers is pretty silly since they don't have a cutting edge so they'd be rubbish at tackling multiple opponents and not much better than just 1 rapier at poking 1 opponent. Two longswords is more reasonable but two one-handed swords would be easier to handle (and easier to take out of a sheathe).
It's not so much that it can't be done, just that it's harder than using two shorter sticks (clubs in D&D terms) that are easier to handle. You can't even "sheathe" a quarterstaff in any normal sense of the word; pole weapons were just carried by hand because there's no convenient way to strap them to your body.
As far as I can tell D&D goes more for pop-culture/rule-of-cool dual wielding than an anything resembling historical dual wielding. The common trend seemed to be one long weapon for attacking and a shorter, easier to handle weapon for blocking attacks and as a backup if you get into a very close-range situation or your main weapon gets disarmed. But the rules don't give you any advantage whatsoever for going that route; you're always better off going with two of the hardest-hitting weapons you can get away with.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
as a DM, depending on their weight, (much harder to hold an iron stick that a wood one) i'd rule you could wield them both like bastard swords with a high enough strength, space, and practice., unless you can demonstrate to me how they would work otherwise.
lke if you can go outside, with two staffs, and wield them efficiently, fine. i will then admit its practical.
Mostly. Any advantage requires training. For the game that is reflected as class abilities or feats.
But you dont see proper rapier / main - gauche pairings for western style. Eastern style as you said two clubs or kamas sure. Katana and wakisazi (sp) were not dual wielded, and katanas were almost always used with two hands.
Fantasy looks cooler, and animes do ridiculous things. So hey, look cool. Gandalf used a sword and staff...so can you!
In combination with the shillelagh, a Druid cantrip, each quarterstaff would deal 1d8 totaling 2d8 plus my spell modifier, for an average of 8+spm+proficiency because Druid. The quarterstaffs also count as magical weapons then. This is done as a bonus action btw.
Several problems with that.
Also, the average of 2d8 is 9.
Over all, dual weilding requires a feat to add 1d6 of damage (and 1 AC) to each turn after the first. It is a pretty heavy investment for that.