I’m attempting to make a quarterstaff fighting style and was wondering if it was balanced. Practically speaking, it gives the player 3 options:

1. Have a shield

           1D6 attack damage

           +2AC

           No bonus attack

2. Wield the quarterstaff one handed with no shield

          1D6 attack damage

          +1AC

           1D4 bonus attack

3. Wield the quarterstaff with both hands

         1D8 attack damage

          1D6 bonus attack

Here is the description:

You excel at using a quarterstaff in combat.

If you take the attack action using a quarterstaff, you may make one additional attack as a bonus action. This attack deals 1D4 bludgeoning damage when wielding the quarterstaff with one hand. Your off hand must be free to make this attack. The attack deals 1D6 bludgeoning damage when the quarterstaff is wielded with two hands.

Additionally, you gain +1 AC when wielding the quarterstaff with one hand. You may switch between holding the quarterstaff with one or two hands as a bonus action.

I'm not on the same page with you. I would work it this way.

Quarter staff & Shield, +2 AC and 1d6 damage because it was wielded with one hand. -or-

Quarter staff, +1 AC and 1d8 but no bonus attack -or-

Quarter staff, 1d8 and 1d6 as a bonus action -or-

Quarter staff, 1d10 but no bonus attack

This would be a fighting style for quarter staff experts I could see.

That actually makes a lot of sense. It could be flavored as various stances. Thanks for the input!

Are you saying a staff + shield gets +2 AC from the shield and another +2 AC from the staff? That's a lot.

Most feats aren't trying to cover different configurations the way you are. It might make sense to break it into a couple different feats. Feats also don't typically overwrite the damage die for a weapon. I'm not sure it's worth breaking convention here.

For what it's worth, my Staff-Fighting feat is this:

Through rigorous training, you can turn a simple quarterstaff into a formidable weapon. While you are holding a quarterstaff with two hands, you gain the following benefits:

• You gain a +1 bonus to Armor Class.
• When you take the Attack action with a quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage.
• You can make a running long jump or a running high jump after moving only 5 feet on foot, rather than 10 feet.

I have concerns about the AC bonus as well. Shields already give a bonus to AC so I think it would be a bit OP if you gained a total of 4 AC this way. Most fighting styles suggest a particular usage rather than having options depending on whether you also have a shield or not. For a  quarterstaff fighting style I would encourage using it two-handed, not with a shield. Flavor-wise a bonus attack with the other end of the weapon seems better and allows a player to possibly make up for a low damage roll with their original attack. This can result in some fun story moments where they swing with their quarterstaff and only deal 1 or 2 damage but then their bonus attack deals max damage on the back swing!  

Don’t forget, the Pole Arm Master also works with quarterstaff. Whenever I try to devise a team for something like this, I always make sure it does not duplicate something another feat already does. After all, if they take PAM and your feet, then part of one of them won’t apply. To make sure that nothing losing its attractiveness as a player option, I triy for something different, yet compatible.

I was thinking the +2AC is from the shield, not in addition to

Quote from MusicScout >>

I was thinking the +2AC is from the shield, not in addition to

 In that case it doesn't need mentioned, right? Since the shield already gives +2 any additional mention of it creates the possibility that people will mistakenly think they get an additional +2 (As was the case in this thread).