With just a few seconds of searching, it's fairly easy to find examples of someone wielding a staff or a spear one-handed with what can easily be considered Finesse. That being said, I'm curious as to why there is no way to use a spear or a quarterstaff in such a way as to grant it the Finesse property without either homebrewing a magic item or something similar. This leaves me scratching my head a bit as I, like many players, tire of seeing the same 3-4 weapon choices for certain things. Mechanically speaking, there is NO reason not to allow the Quarterstaff to be included in the Finesse list. I can understand Spears I suppose since they can be thrown and the only other throwable Finesse weapon is the Dagger. I've included some numbers to make my point:
Shortsword: Finesse, Light, 1D6 Slashing damage
Scimitar: Finesse, Light, 1D6 Slashing damage
(Both of these qualify as off-hand weapons for 2-weapon fighting as they possess the Light property and they can use Str OR Dex since they're Finesse weapons)
Rapier: Finesse, 1D8 Piercing damage
(This is the go-to weapon for the Duelling Fighting Style as it's the most damaging 1-handed weapon. Note that it's not Light so it cannot be an off-hand weapon without the Dual Wield Feat)
(Pretty much THE iconic weapon for Monks and other 'I'm just a poor old man with his walking stick. Note that even if it's used 2-handed it does NOT grant Reach)
(Has any D&D players NOT seen an example of a Hoplite or other ancient warrior using a Spear and Shield? Also does not grant Reach)
The benefits of making the Quarterstaff a Finesse weapon are that it can use Dex instead of Str for Stat bonuses which makes perfect sense to me. It would allow a character with the Defensive Duelist Feat to gain their Proficiency Bonus to their AC. Mechanically, this is actually WORSE than using a Rapier since using the Staff 2-handed (in order to do the same D8 damage as the Rapier) means the character cannot use a Shield or an off-handed weapon.
The tl;dr is that I can see no reason to prohibit the Staff from being counted as a Finesse weapon. I can see arguments for and against the Spear as it can be thrown but as with most things that would be a DM's call.
If I've missed anything in my debate please let me know. If you have any opinions one way or the other please let me know those too.
Monk weapons can use Dex, and all simple weapons, including the quarterstaff and spear are monk weapons. Otherwise, it is perfectly consistent that bludgeoning weapons and versatile weapons aren’t finesse.
Full disclosure: I skimmed your post and didn't read it, so I may have missed some important details. I apologize in advance if my comment doesn't address your core question.
Depending on how you divide the weapons table up, it becomes possible to conclude either that the devs intended for damage type to matter or that they didn't; my personal take on it is that originally they did. Then they changed their minds, but the weapons table was never properly updated to reflect the change in design philosophy.
So the fact is that there are no finesse Bludgeoning weapons, and the only Bludgeoning weapon that uses Dexterity is Slings, but there's no coherent argument from a balance perspective that this is well-motivated - that is, it's a hard sell that it meaningfully impacts game balance banning the Finesse quality from Bludgeoning weapons. If you, as a DM, want to remove this ban, you won't overpower your players.
There is a very consistent ban in the weapons table on any two-handed weapon being finesse, and by extension, any Versatile weapon (for fear of someone using Dexterity with a two-handed melee attack). This does have a non-zero impact on game balance - while greatclubs are underpowered, the Martial weapons have a variety of two-handed and versatile melee weapons that do a lot of damage. For example, it's impossible to Sneak Attack with a 2d6 weapon, you need firearms to be house-ruled in to Sneak Attack with a 1d12 weapon, and you have to suffer the Loading property to Sneak Attack with a 1d10 weapon.
So it's pretty likely that one of the reasons Quarterstaffs aren't Finesse is from flavor - the WOTC designers didn't like the idea of two-handed melee attacks made with Dexterity. As a DM, feel free to override flavor with your own.
Another reason is balance, though. If you want to allow Finesse Quarterstaves, don't necessarily allow Finesse Longswords or Finesse Glaives.
it's pretty easy to back-solve from the weapons table how to correctly balance a weapon for simple vs martial, where correctness is defined WOTC's way (i.e. making no value judgments as to how correct they were). This leads to some weapons being underpowered, like greatclubs, and some being overpowered, like mauls. The breakdown for a Simple Melee Weapon is that you start with 1d4 of any damage type of S/B/P and then apply upgrades; a Simple weapon can have three. If you do this, Spears and Quarterstaves are exactly on par with Daggers, so any upgrade applied to them makes them more powerful and hence overpowered (Daggers are the gold standard for Simple Melee Weapons). However, overpowered may be ok with you, because again, this is relative to WOTC's definition. Here's the breakdown:
Dagger: +Finesse, +Light, +Thrown
Spear: +Damage (1d4->1d6), +Versatile, +Thrown
Quarterstaff: +Damage, +Versatile, +Focus (not a property, but staff spell foci - explicitly the arcane ones for certain, and implicitly the druidic ones - can be used as quarterstaves)
If you don't count Focus as an upgrade, Quarterstaves are underpowered, and adding Finesse brings them up to being on par with Spears. However...
Every class in the game is proficient with Quarterstaves. Any upgrade to them upgrades everyone. Just be aware.
A finesse spear is 4 upgrades without question and should require Martial Weapon Proficiency - in fact, adding Finesse to tridents is one way you could fix them while remaining (mostly) consistent with WOTC's design philosophy. If you just make a finesse spear, spears immediately become the best simple melee weapon by a country mile and you risk introducing balance issues among the classes only proficient in every simple weapon.
Note that the only class with access to Dexterity spears base - Monks - are already making a poor choice if they pick any weapon that isn't Spears to festoon themselves with. You don't want that exploding out to non-Monks without carefully considering your decision.
tl;dr: There's no balance issue in allowing Finesse + Bludgeoning to exist. There is a potential balance issue you as the DM can manually avoid in allowing Finesse+Versatile to exist. There is a potential balance issue you may not be able to avoid allowing Finesse+Focus to exist. Finesse Spears are definitely a balance issue.
Monk weapons can use Dex, and all simple weapons, including the quarterstaff and spear are monk weapons. Otherwise, it is perfectly consistent that bludgeoning weapons and versatile weapons aren’t finesse.
What exactly is the problem?
It's consistent ONLY with the fact that it's on a particular damage type i.e. bludgeoning.
As far as I know, there are not tons of enemies vulnerable to any particular weapon damage type so the only advantage to doing 1D8 Bludgeoning over 1D8 any other kind is that Bludgeoning allows someone to utilize the Crusher Feat. Not exactly over-powered.
So I can do 1D8 Piercing with a Rapier with Finesse but not a Staff? Even though they do the same damage and Staff requires two hands to do that damage? Makes no sense to me.
Monk weapons can use Dex, and all simple weapons, including the quarterstaff and spear are monk weapons. Otherwise, it is perfectly consistent that bludgeoning weapons and versatile weapons aren’t finesse.
What exactly is the problem?
It's consistent ONLY with the fact that it's on a particular damage type i.e. bludgeoning.
As far as I know, there are not tons of enemies vulnerable to any particular weapon damage type so the only advantage to doing 1D8 Bludgeoning over 1D8 any other kind is that Bludgeoning allows someone to utilize the Crusher Feat. Not exactly over-powered.
So I can do 1D8 Piercing with a Rapier with Finesse but not a Staff? Even though they do the same damage and Staff requires two hands to do that damage? Makes no sense to me.
Rapiers are Martial. It's clearly intended that Martial weapons outperform Simple weapons. Now, a Rapier would still outperform a Finesse Quarterstaff, because Rapiers are 1d8 one-handed - the staves are 1d6 one-handed, 1d8 two-handed. But it's not as simple as "if I can do it with a Martial weapon, I should be able to do it with a Simple weapon".
Full disclosure: I skimmed your post and didn't read it, so I may have missed some important details. I apologize in advance if my comment doesn't address your core question.
Depending on how you divide the weapons table up, it becomes possible to conclude either that the devs intended for damage type to matter or that they didn't; my personal take on it is that originally they did. Then they changed their minds, but the weapons table was never properly updated to reflect the change in design philosophy.
So the fact is that there are no finesse Bludgeoning weapons, and the only Bludgeoning weapon that uses Dexterity is Slings, but there's no coherent argument from a balance perspective that this is well-motivated - that is, it's a hard sell that it meaningfully impacts game balance banning the Finesse quality from Bludgeoning weapons. If you, as a DM, want to remove this ban, you won't overpower your players.
There is a very consistent ban in the weapons table on any two-handed weapon being finesse, and by extension, any Versatile weapon (for fear of someone using Dexterity with a two-handed melee attack). This does have a non-zero impact on game balance - while greatclubs are underpowered, the Martial weapons have a variety of two-handed and versatile melee weapons that do a lot of damage. For example, it's impossible to Sneak Attack with a 2d6 weapon, you need firearms to be house-ruled in to Sneak Attack with a 1d12 weapon, and you have to suffer the Loading property to Sneak Attack with a 1d10 weapon.
So it's pretty likely that one of the reasons Quarterstaffs aren't Finesse is from flavor - the WOTC designers didn't like the idea of two-handed melee attacks made with Dexterity. As a DM, feel free to override flavor with your own.
Another reason is balance, though. If you want to allow Finesse Quarterstaves, don't necessarily allow Finesse Longswords or Finesse Glaives.
it's pretty easy to back-solve from the weapons table how to correctly balance a weapon for simple vs martial, where correctness is defined WOTC's way (i.e. making no value judgments as to how correct they were). This leads to some weapons being underpowered, like greatclubs, and some being overpowered, like mauls. The breakdown for a Simple Melee Weapon is that you start with 1d4 of any damage type of S/B/P and then apply upgrades; a Simple weapon can have three. If you do this, Spears and Quarterstaves are exactly on par with Daggers, so any upgrade applied to them makes them more powerful and hence overpowered (Daggers are the gold standard for Simple Melee Weapons). However, overpowered may be ok with you, because again, this is relative to WOTC's definition. Here's the breakdown:
Dagger: +Finesse, +Light, +Thrown
Spear: +Damage (1d4->1d6), +Versatile, +Thrown
Quarterstaff: +Damage, +Versatile, +Focus (not a property, but staff spell foci - explicitly the arcane ones for certain, and implicitly the druidic ones - can be used as quarterstaves)
If you don't count Focus as an upgrade, Quarterstaves are underpowered, and adding Finesse brings them up to being on par with Spears. However...
Every class in the game is proficient with Quarterstaves. Any upgrade to them upgrades everyone. Just be aware.
A finesse spear is 4 upgrades without question and should require Martial Weapon Proficiency - in fact, adding Finesse to tridents is one way you could fix them while remaining (mostly) consistent with WOTC's design philosophy. If you just make a finesse spear, spears immediately become the best simple melee weapon by a country mile and you risk introducing balance issues among the classes only proficient in every simple weapon.
Note that the only class with access to Dexterity spears base - Monks - are already making a poor choice if they pick any weapon that isn't Spears to festoon themselves with. You don't want that exploding out to non-Monks without carefully considering your decision.
tl;dr: There's no balance issue in allowing Finesse + Bludgeoning to exist. There is a potential balance issue you as the DM can manually avoid in allowing Finesse+Versatile to exist. There is a potential balance issue you may not be able to avoid allowing Finesse+Focus to exist. Finesse Spears are definitely a balance issue.
Let me begin by saying that it's nice to know that I'm not the ONLY one who really digs into the material to figure stuff out. Welcome, fellow Program!
quote:
So the fact is that there are no finesse Bludgeoning weapons, and the only Bludgeoning weapon that uses Dexterity is Slings, but there's no coherent argument from a balance perspective that this is well-motivated - that is, it's a hard sell that it meaningfully impacts game balance banning the Finesse quality from Bludgeoning weapons. If you, as a DM, want to remove this ban, you won't overpower your players./quote
This was exactly the point I was trying to get to. I can easily understand why Heavy weapons would never be considered Finesse...coupling them with GWM would make them grossly OP. The other two primary Finesse weapons are 1-handed and do 1D6 damage. A Staff or a Spear, if wielded 1-handed, does 1D6 damage. None of these weapons confer the Reach property and only the Spear can be thrown.
I can also understand why the two big Versatile weapons, the Longsword and the Battle Ax, can't be Finesse because they START at 1D8 and go to 1D10 when used 2-handed. As you said, there are NO Finesse 2-handed weapons. But if ALL of the 2-handed weapons start at 1D10 and the Staff and the Spear top out at 1D8 that tells me that balance in maintained with the last two just because their top-end damage is also lower.
I'm simply trying to figure out the midset that a weapon that tops out at 1D8, does not couple with GWM, and requires two hands (thus eliminating the Deulling Fighting Style, and the use of both a Shield AND an off-hand weapon) should not be equal to another weapon (the Rapier) that can do all of these things.
I've never heard of anyone wielding a staff and a shield simultaneously or using a staff as a single handed weapon. I can execute rudimentary display moves with a staff with a single hand, but they do not cary the strength required to cause true damage. To weaponize the staff, one needs two hands to provide both strength and mobility. Why not give staff the finesse ability and remove its ability to be wielded single handed?
IDK, seems they just wanted all finesse weapons one handed.
Giving the quarterstaff finesse would put it in an awkward position of being as good as a shortsword (a martial weapon) as a simple weapon, but not quite as convenient as a rapier.
But I agree that the diversity of weapons suck, and you can totally reskin your weapons however you want.
I've never heard of anyone wielding a staff and a shield simultaneously or using a staff as a single handed weapon. I can execute rudimentary display moves with a staff with a single hand, but they do not cary the strength required to cause true damage. To weaponize the staff, one needs two hands to provide both strength and mobility. Why not give staff the finesse ability and remove its ability to be wielded single handed?
I'm simply trying to figure out the midset that a weapon that tops out at 1D8, does not couple with GWM, and requires two hands (thus eliminating the Deulling Fighting Style, and the use of both a Shield AND an off-hand weapon) should not be equal to another weapon (the Rapier) that can do all of these things.
WOTC has openly admitted they crippled game balance in the name of flavor - see e.g. the Druid oath against metal armor, which WOTC has explicitly stated was for flavor reasons, and there's no imbalance in giving Druids access to half-plate. It is certain that the weapons table was influenced by "flavor", which means WOTC's ideas on how things should go, thematically.
It is even more certain that the weapons table has trash internal balance, because tridents and spears exist at the same time. However, bear in mind GWM is not the only relevant feat; PAM is also extremely significant here.
Like I said, if you want to make a balanced weapon from WOTC's perspective, you use the guidelines I gave you - Martial weapons get 4 upgrades, Simple weapons get 3, and there's some more nuance to it: there are upgrades that are Martial only, and some of those are worth negative upgrade points, like Heavy (Reach is worth 2 upgrade points and whips are underpowered). From that perspective, a Finesse Spear is a balanced Martial weapon and an OP Simple weapon, and a Finesse Staff is either the same (if you count Focus as an upgrade) or a balanced Simple Weapon (if you don't). I think WOTC intended Focus as a stealth upgrade, though, which is another way of saying Staves are intentionally weak because they're the universal weapon even wizards are expected to wield.
Monk weapons can use Dex, and all simple weapons, including the quarterstaff and spear are monk weapons. Otherwise, it is perfectly consistent that bludgeoning weapons and versatile weapons aren’t finesse.
What exactly is the problem?
If you've ever seen them fought with in reality you'd know what the problem was.
Edit: Anywho. Just give them finesse AND a Special Property: While this weapon is wielded you can make use of the versatile property or the finesse property during an attack made with it, but never use both of these properties at the same time.
That lets them be finesse when used one handed. That breaks literally nothing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I've never heard of anyone wielding a staff and a shield simultaneously or using a staff as a single handed weapon. I can execute rudimentary display moves with a staff with a single hand, but they do not cary the strength required to cause true damage. To weaponize the staff, one needs two hands to provide both strength and mobility. Why not give staff the finesse ability and remove its ability to be wielded single handed?
What can be done irl is immaterial. D&D is not an attempt at an accurate combat simulator. It’s a game with a set of rules designed to make it fun, overlaid on top of some math and probability. Real life has no such goal or limitations (though I guess you might make an argument about the math). I mean, look at all the threads about how the swords have names that don’t match up to what was actually used. Or how many of the various armor types, historically, would not have been seen at the same time. Or how shields should be used.
My advice is, don’t think about it too much. The rules are there to make the game fun and balanced, not to reflect reality.
3.5 had a d4 blunt Sap you could sneak attack with, if I recall, and I've missed that flexibility a few times.
My own interpretation of Improvised Weapon rules doesn't preclude the DM assigning them weapon properties, so I think that taking Tavern Brawler as a sort of feat tax to buy in using another weapon in a new Finesse-y-er way (possibly with a reduced weapon damage dice?) might be an OK patch, for a player that really wants to find a blunt or 2H finesse weapon and DM who wants to accommodate without too much re-balancing of the world.
Bludgeoning damage implies bruising, which I would think is primarily inflicted using a large amount of strength behind the blow, not by being quite deft with where the blow hits.
Bludgeoning damage implies bruising, which I would think is primarily inflicted using a large amount of strength behind the blow, not by being quite deft with where the blow hits.
I can certainly think of ways blunt damage is done with finesse over strength. They are more for deterring/disabling the opponent than harming them though (self defence type stuff).
I can totally see a reskinned club with finesse not hurting game balance. Changing the damage type of any weapon doesn't change its overall strength, so if the DM is fine with it go for it.
Bludgeoning damage implies bruising, which I would think is primarily inflicted using a large amount of strength behind the blow, not by being quite deft with where the blow hits.
That's immaterial. Slings use Dexterity already - it's just not the case that you need Strength to deal bludgeoning damage normally. Assuming you assign ability modifiers to attacks based on the kind of attack, as one of the two PHB rules on the matter says to do and which is corroborated by the SAC, then you can also deal Bludgeoning damage with Dexterity with any improvised thrown bludgeoning weapon, like throwing a chair at someone. The ship has firmly sailed on whether or not it's possible to Bludgeon someone using your Dexterity without magical assistance.
Far more potentially material is the implied WOTC assertion that no Versatile weapon can be Finesse, and you need to be a Monk to figure out how to swing a Versatile weapon with Dexterity. Likewise, far more potentially material is the implied WOTC assertion that Staves are intentionally relatively underpowered because they can be used as spellcasting foci out the gate by a variety of classes.
Finesse weapons are weapons where quickly moving it across/into your target does damage. A quick slash with a scimitar or a quick stab with a rapier. In order to harm someone with a blunt object, you need to have some strength or weight behind it. A sling works because you're very quickly swinging the rock around before letting it fly. Speed gives it momentum.
Strength is theoretically the only stat which can lend velocity and hence momentum to an attack, but nonetheless, we use Dexterity to determine Slings. If you're willing to accept Dexterity lets you whip a sling faster - and remember, Strength and Dexterity both work on actual whips, but only Dexterity works on slings, which are just whips where you let the end of the whip detach during the swing - then we're firmly into territory where Dexterity can supply motive force to things in your hands. Also, all 3 damage types are based on weapon velocity. The difference between Piercing, Slashing, and Bludgeoning damage is how much surface area the weapon presents to the target - Piercing is least, Bludgeoning is most. The only exception here is that I just gave the difference between a pick, a maul, and an axe. In the specific case of Slashing damage, instead of just chopping or thrusting the weapon into your target, you can drag the weapon along the target's skin (if it has skin), cutting it open and causing it to bleed (if it has blood), which can hurt it via blood loss.
Now, bear in mind I'm not arguing that your version of how damage should work is wrong - I'm arguing purely from how WOTC appears to have defined damage. If Slings dealt Piercing damage (like they do in the real world) or if Strength mattered for how hard you can whip a Sling around (like it does in the real world), we'd be having a whole different conversation about WOTC's portrayal of weapon damage. But the fact is that Slings set hard precedent for Dexterity being a valid choice for Bludgeoning damage.
In the real world strength is as important to being effective with a bow as dex, especially European style long and short bows. Whatever. It is a game decision. It may have had some thought behind it or not, but no one here will be able to tell you what that was.
There is no reason that I see to change it, Dex is already too important, as someone else pointed out. If you are sad that your monk can't use Dex with their staff, you're confused. If you are sad that some other class can't use dex with their melee weapons, make a different choice -- you get flexibility that monks don't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With just a few seconds of searching, it's fairly easy to find examples of someone wielding a staff or a spear one-handed with what can easily be considered Finesse. That being said, I'm curious as to why there is no way to use a spear or a quarterstaff in such a way as to grant it the Finesse property without either homebrewing a magic item or something similar. This leaves me scratching my head a bit as I, like many players, tire of seeing the same 3-4 weapon choices for certain things. Mechanically speaking, there is NO reason not to allow the Quarterstaff to be included in the Finesse list. I can understand Spears I suppose since they can be thrown and the only other throwable Finesse weapon is the Dagger. I've included some numbers to make my point:
Shortsword: Finesse, Light, 1D6 Slashing damage
Scimitar: Finesse, Light, 1D6 Slashing damage
(Both of these qualify as off-hand weapons for 2-weapon fighting as they possess the Light property and they can use Str OR Dex since they're Finesse weapons)
Rapier: Finesse, 1D8 Piercing damage
(This is the go-to weapon for the Duelling Fighting Style as it's the most damaging 1-handed weapon. Note that it's not Light so it cannot be an off-hand weapon without the Dual Wield Feat)
Quarterstaff: Versatile, 1D6/1D8 Bludgeoning damage
(Pretty much THE iconic weapon for Monks and other 'I'm just a poor old man with his walking stick. Note that even if it's used 2-handed it does NOT grant Reach)
Spear: Versatile, 1D6/1D8 Piercing damage, Throwable
(Has any D&D players NOT seen an example of a Hoplite or other ancient warrior using a Spear and Shield? Also does not grant Reach)
The benefits of making the Quarterstaff a Finesse weapon are that it can use Dex instead of Str for Stat bonuses which makes perfect sense to me. It would allow a character with the Defensive Duelist Feat to gain their Proficiency Bonus to their AC. Mechanically, this is actually WORSE than using a Rapier since using the Staff 2-handed (in order to do the same D8 damage as the Rapier) means the character cannot use a Shield or an off-handed weapon.
The tl;dr is that I can see no reason to prohibit the Staff from being counted as a Finesse weapon. I can see arguments for and against the Spear as it can be thrown but as with most things that would be a DM's call.
If I've missed anything in my debate please let me know. If you have any opinions one way or the other please let me know those too.
Monk weapons can use Dex, and all simple weapons, including the quarterstaff and spear are monk weapons. Otherwise, it is perfectly consistent that bludgeoning weapons and versatile weapons aren’t finesse.
What exactly is the problem?
Full disclosure: I skimmed your post and didn't read it, so I may have missed some important details. I apologize in advance if my comment doesn't address your core question.
tl;dr: There's no balance issue in allowing Finesse + Bludgeoning to exist. There is a potential balance issue you as the DM can manually avoid in allowing Finesse+Versatile to exist. There is a potential balance issue you may not be able to avoid allowing Finesse+Focus to exist. Finesse Spears are definitely a balance issue.
It's consistent ONLY with the fact that it's on a particular damage type i.e. bludgeoning.
As far as I know, there are not tons of enemies vulnerable to any particular weapon damage type so the only advantage to doing 1D8 Bludgeoning over 1D8 any other kind is that Bludgeoning allows someone to utilize the Crusher Feat. Not exactly over-powered.
So I can do 1D8 Piercing with a Rapier with Finesse but not a Staff? Even though they do the same damage and Staff requires two hands to do that damage? Makes no sense to me.
Rapiers are Martial. It's clearly intended that Martial weapons outperform Simple weapons. Now, a Rapier would still outperform a Finesse Quarterstaff, because Rapiers are 1d8 one-handed - the staves are 1d6 one-handed, 1d8 two-handed. But it's not as simple as "if I can do it with a Martial weapon, I should be able to do it with a Simple weapon".
Let me begin by saying that it's nice to know that I'm not the ONLY one who really digs into the material to figure stuff out. Welcome, fellow Program!
quote:
This was exactly the point I was trying to get to. I can easily understand why Heavy weapons would never be considered Finesse...coupling them with GWM would make them grossly OP. The other two primary Finesse weapons are 1-handed and do 1D6 damage. A Staff or a Spear, if wielded 1-handed, does 1D6 damage. None of these weapons confer the Reach property and only the Spear can be thrown.
I can also understand why the two big Versatile weapons, the Longsword and the Battle Ax, can't be Finesse because they START at 1D8 and go to 1D10 when used 2-handed. As you said, there are NO Finesse 2-handed weapons. But if ALL of the 2-handed weapons start at 1D10 and the Staff and the Spear top out at 1D8 that tells me that balance in maintained with the last two just because their top-end damage is also lower.
I'm simply trying to figure out the midset that a weapon that tops out at 1D8, does not couple with GWM, and requires two hands (thus eliminating the Deulling Fighting Style, and the use of both a Shield AND an off-hand weapon) should not be equal to another weapon (the Rapier) that can do all of these things.
I've never heard of anyone wielding a staff and a shield simultaneously or using a staff as a single handed weapon. I can execute rudimentary display moves with a staff with a single hand, but they do not cary the strength required to cause true damage. To weaponize the staff, one needs two hands to provide both strength and mobility. Why not give staff the finesse ability and remove its ability to be wielded single handed?
IDK, seems they just wanted all finesse weapons one handed.
Giving the quarterstaff finesse would put it in an awkward position of being as good as a shortsword (a martial weapon) as a simple weapon, but not quite as convenient as a rapier.
But I agree that the diversity of weapons suck, and you can totally reskin your weapons however you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DagVAmbBC38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUKfe4VUKs
WOTC has openly admitted they crippled game balance in the name of flavor - see e.g. the Druid oath against metal armor, which WOTC has explicitly stated was for flavor reasons, and there's no imbalance in giving Druids access to half-plate. It is certain that the weapons table was influenced by "flavor", which means WOTC's ideas on how things should go, thematically.
It is even more certain that the weapons table has trash internal balance, because tridents and spears exist at the same time. However, bear in mind GWM is not the only relevant feat; PAM is also extremely significant here.
Like I said, if you want to make a balanced weapon from WOTC's perspective, you use the guidelines I gave you - Martial weapons get 4 upgrades, Simple weapons get 3, and there's some more nuance to it: there are upgrades that are Martial only, and some of those are worth negative upgrade points, like Heavy (Reach is worth 2 upgrade points and whips are underpowered). From that perspective, a Finesse Spear is a balanced Martial weapon and an OP Simple weapon, and a Finesse Staff is either the same (if you count Focus as an upgrade) or a balanced Simple Weapon (if you don't). I think WOTC intended Focus as a stealth upgrade, though, which is another way of saying Staves are intentionally weak because they're the universal weapon even wizards are expected to wield.
If you've ever seen them fought with in reality you'd know what the problem was.
Edit: Anywho. Just give them finesse AND a Special Property: While this weapon is wielded you can make use of the versatile property or the finesse property during an attack made with it, but never use both of these properties at the same time.
That lets them be finesse when used one handed. That breaks literally nothing.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What can be done irl is immaterial. D&D is not an attempt at an accurate combat simulator. It’s a game with a set of rules designed to make it fun, overlaid on top of some math and probability. Real life has no such goal or limitations (though I guess you might make an argument about the math). I mean, look at all the threads about how the swords have names that don’t match up to what was actually used. Or how many of the various armor types, historically, would not have been seen at the same time. Or how shields should be used.
My advice is, don’t think about it too much. The rules are there to make the game fun and balanced, not to reflect reality.
Because "blunt instrument" and "finesse" don't go together.
I'm guessing, based on blogs and podcasts, that DEX is already the most valuable ability score, and more finesse weapons just makes it even better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH16YwC4KRg
3.5 had a d4 blunt Sap you could sneak attack with, if I recall, and I've missed that flexibility a few times.
My own interpretation of Improvised Weapon rules doesn't preclude the DM assigning them weapon properties, so I think that taking Tavern Brawler as a sort of feat tax to buy in using another weapon in a new Finesse-y-er way (possibly with a reduced weapon damage dice?) might be an OK patch, for a player that really wants to find a blunt or 2H finesse weapon and DM who wants to accommodate without too much re-balancing of the world.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Bludgeoning damage implies bruising, which I would think is primarily inflicted using a large amount of strength behind the blow, not by being quite deft with where the blow hits.
I can certainly think of ways blunt damage is done with finesse over strength. They are more for deterring/disabling the opponent than harming them though (self defence type stuff).
I can totally see a reskinned club with finesse not hurting game balance. Changing the damage type of any weapon doesn't change its overall strength, so if the DM is fine with it go for it.
That's immaterial. Slings use Dexterity already - it's just not the case that you need Strength to deal bludgeoning damage normally. Assuming you assign ability modifiers to attacks based on the kind of attack, as one of the two PHB rules on the matter says to do and which is corroborated by the SAC, then you can also deal Bludgeoning damage with Dexterity with any improvised thrown bludgeoning weapon, like throwing a chair at someone. The ship has firmly sailed on whether or not it's possible to Bludgeon someone using your Dexterity without magical assistance.
Far more potentially material is the implied WOTC assertion that no Versatile weapon can be Finesse, and you need to be a Monk to figure out how to swing a Versatile weapon with Dexterity. Likewise, far more potentially material is the implied WOTC assertion that Staves are intentionally relatively underpowered because they can be used as spellcasting foci out the gate by a variety of classes.
Strength is theoretically the only stat which can lend velocity and hence momentum to an attack, but nonetheless, we use Dexterity to determine Slings. If you're willing to accept Dexterity lets you whip a sling faster - and remember, Strength and Dexterity both work on actual whips, but only Dexterity works on slings, which are just whips where you let the end of the whip detach during the swing - then we're firmly into territory where Dexterity can supply motive force to things in your hands. Also, all 3 damage types are based on weapon velocity. The difference between Piercing, Slashing, and Bludgeoning damage is how much surface area the weapon presents to the target - Piercing is least, Bludgeoning is most. The only exception here is that I just gave the difference between a pick, a maul, and an axe. In the specific case of Slashing damage, instead of just chopping or thrusting the weapon into your target, you can drag the weapon along the target's skin (if it has skin), cutting it open and causing it to bleed (if it has blood), which can hurt it via blood loss.
Now, bear in mind I'm not arguing that your version of how damage should work is wrong - I'm arguing purely from how WOTC appears to have defined damage. If Slings dealt Piercing damage (like they do in the real world) or if Strength mattered for how hard you can whip a Sling around (like it does in the real world), we'd be having a whole different conversation about WOTC's portrayal of weapon damage. But the fact is that Slings set hard precedent for Dexterity being a valid choice for Bludgeoning damage.
In the real world strength is as important to being effective with a bow as dex, especially European style long and short bows. Whatever. It is a game decision. It may have had some thought behind it or not, but no one here will be able to tell you what that was.
There is no reason that I see to change it, Dex is already too important, as someone else pointed out. If you are sad that your monk can't use Dex with their staff, you're confused. If you are sad that some other class can't use dex with their melee weapons, make a different choice -- you get flexibility that monks don't.