Why is Quaterstaff Mastery even a feat?


Rules Questions

The Exchange

From Ultimate Magic.

Quarterstaff Master (Combat) wrote:


You can wield a quarterstaff as either a two-handed or one-
handed weapon.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (quarterstaff ), base attack
bonus +5.
Benefit: By employing a number of different stances
and techniques, you can wield a quarterstaff as a one-
handed weapon. At the start of your turn, you decide
whether or not you are going to wield the quarterstaff as
a one-handed or two-handed weapon. When you wield it
as a one-handed weapon, your other hand is free, and you
cannot use the staff as a double weapon. You can take the
feat Weapon Specialization in the quarterstaff even if
you have no levels in fighter.

You can already fight with a quarterstaff one-handed, because it's a double weapon. Why is this restated in this feat? The only thing this feat does is let you take another feat. If you're taking this, you're probably a monk, and there are so many better options.


No, you are probably a caster. It gives you one hand free to cast spells, and still be able to take attacks of opportunity.


Waffle_Neutral wrote:


You can already fight with a quarterstaff one-handed, because it's a double weapon. Why is this restated in this feat? The only thing this feat does is let you take another feat. If you're taking this, you're probably a monk, and there are so many better options.

You cannot fight with a double weapon one-handed. You can either use it as a double weapon, striking with both ends, or you can use it as a two-handed weapon and strike with one end.

As Dabbler mentioned, it's mainly used by casters to let them have a weapon readied in one hand while leaving the other free for spellcasting. The magus, in particular, uses this feat in conjunction with its spell combat ability.


A quarterstaff is a two-handed double weapon. It therefore takes up two hands, whether you're attacking with one head or both heads. This feat changes it to a one-handed weapon.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the text for the Double Property.

Quote:

Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if

fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the
normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two
weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon
and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as
a one-handed weapon
, but it cannot be used as a double
weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the
weapon can be used in any given round.

All double weapons are listed under two-handed weapons, but they can all be used as a one-handed weapon. One of the defining characteristics of one-handed weapons is that they can used with one hand.


WRoy wrote:
Waffle_Neutral wrote:


You can already fight with a quarterstaff one-handed, because it's a double weapon. Why is this restated in this feat? The only thing this feat does is let you take another feat. If you're taking this, you're probably a monk, and there are so many better options.
You cannot fight with a double weapon one-handed.

I think the confusion comes from this sentence: "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon —- only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."

My interpretation is that it's referring to a Medium-sized creature using a Small quarterstaff in one hand (for instance), but it's definitely a bit cryptic.

EDIT: Sorta ninja'ed by Waffle_Neutral


Waffle_Neutral wrote:

Here's the text for the Double Property.

Quote:

Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if

fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the
normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two
weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon
and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as
a one-handed weapon
, but it cannot be used as a double
weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the
weapon can be used in any given round.
All double weapons are listed under two-handed weapons, but they can all be used as a one-handed weapon. One of the defining characteristics of one-handed weapons is that they can used with one hand.

Where did you find that text? That's not what's in the PRD.

Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.


Waffle_Neutral wrote:

Here's the text for the Double Property.

Quote:

Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if

fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the
normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two
weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon
and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as
a one-handed weapon
, but it cannot be used as a double
weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the
weapon can be used in any given round.
All double weapons are listed under two-handed weapons, but they can all be used as a one-handed weapon. One of the defining characteristics of one-handed weapons is that they can used with one hand.

Where did you get that text from?

The official text for double property from core rulebook as presented on prd (and thus including the most current revisions in print):

Quote:

Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

It does not specificially override the fact requirement of using two hands to wield two-handed without special abilities. It only gives the clause that if you happen to be using double weapon in one hand (which is possible with using undersized weapon or with some special abilities - like Titan Mauler's archetype Jotungrips ability).


Waffle_Neutral wrote:


All double weapons are listed under two-handed weapons, but they can all be used as a one-handed weapon. One of the defining characteristics of one-handed weapons is that they can used with one hand.

It looks like you may be grabbing the text from somewhere that is outdated. Here is the PRD on double weapons:

PRD wrote:

Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

It has been clarified that a double weapon is a two-handed weapon. The last sentence is referring to a creature wielding an undersized double weapon in one hand. It is included so a character cannot wield two double weapons and "dual-dual wield".


WRoy wrote:
Waffle_Neutral wrote:


You can already fight with a quarterstaff one-handed, because it's a double weapon. Why is this restated in this feat? The only thing this feat does is let you take another feat. If you're taking this, you're probably a monk, and there are so many better options.

You cannot fight with a double weapon one-handed. You can either use it as a double weapon, striking with both ends, or you can use it as a two-handed weapon and strike with one end.

As Dabbler mentioned, it's mainly used by casters to let them have a weapon readied in one hand while leaving the other free for spellcasting. The magus, in particular, uses this feat in conjunction with its spell combat ability.

You must be thinking of the Staff Magus. Normal Maguses have martial weapon proficiency, and can wield a plethora of weapons in one hand.


Bobson wrote:


Where did you find that text? That's not what's in the PRD.

Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

It looks like he's got a different version of the line which follows that quote:

Quote:
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two- handed, attacking with only one end of it.

Not sure where from, has this changed from the original edition/3rd ed DnD perhaps?


lobachevskii wrote:
Not sure where from, has this changed from the original edition/3rd ed DnD perhaps?

The same somewhat-confusing line was in the 3.5 SRD:

"A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon -— only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

My question would be why can't you just say, "I hold my staff in one hand while I cast with the other?"

Okay, I guess you technically then have to take the move action/combo move action to "wield" it later--which keeps you from making AOOS with the staff till you do. That's a bit of a problem -- but then a mage who is worried about that will be more likely to take a single-handed weapon rather than wait until 10th level to take this feat, because of the +5 BAB prerequisite.

And I'm sure the +5 BAB prerequsite is to keep martial characters from taking it too early, but then it doesn't really help the casters it's presumably meant to help?

If the feat really was intended for spellcasters specifically, it might have made more sense to design a feat specifically for spellcasters, e.g., (this is off the top of my head so who knows if it's balanced):

Staff Mage
Like many mages of old, you gesture with your staff when casting spells--thus allowing you to blast easily while carrying a big stick.
Prerequisites: BAB +1, Weapon Focus: Quarterstaff, Combat Casting. ((And/or maybe having Arcane Bond with a staff? Although that would restrict it to certain kinds of arcane casters only))
Benefit: You can cast spells with somatic components while wielding a quarterstaff, even though you are considered holding a weapon with both hands. You are assumed to be gesturing with your staff as part of your somatic components, and conditions and effects which prevent you from using somatic components apply as normal.
If an opponent uses an attack of opportunity or readied action to successfully disarm or sunder your staff while you are casting a spell with it in hand, you must make a concentration check, DC 10+double the spell's level, to complete the spell successfully. You are not required to cast spells while wielding your staff.
Normal: You must have one free hand to cast spells with somatic components.

The Exchange

I see where the confusion comes from. On page 144 of my Core Rulebook under Weapon Qualities it says the text I quoted, but on page 141 there's the contradicting passage you guys quoted.

I also found this FAQ that relates. James Jacobs confirms that a wizard can wield his quarterstaff in one hand and cast a spell.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Waffle_Neutral wrote:

I see where the confusion comes from. On page 144 of my Core Rulebook under Weapon Qualities it says the text I quoted, but on page 141 there's the contradicting passage you guys quoted.

I also found this FAQ that relates. James Jacobs confirms that a wizard can wield his quarterstaff in one hand and cast a spell.

You probably have a pre-errata printing. What's in the PRD (not d20pfsrd) is up-to-date. Under "weapon qualities" I can see the passage other people quoted.

As to the comment from James Jacobs... problem is, that's not the official FAQ, that's just a collection of quotes from the message board. Useful, yes (and thanks for pointing it out!). But it's not the actual rules--and actually confounds the rules about what is considered "wielding," I think. (I think his ruling is fine, but it's not, "the rules.")

But if it's NOT an issue for spellcasters... the only thing I can think of is why the Staff Mastery feat exists is it allows you to wield a staff and a shield at the same time (alternating between different ends depending on what kind of damage you're trying to do, I guess).... ?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This sounds like stupid rules and an irrelevant feat, which makes it prime for ignoring.


Marthian wrote:


You must be thinking of the Staff Magus. Normal Maguses have martial weapon proficiency, and can wield a plethora of weapons in one hand.

I wasn't intending that to sound as if it was the only way for a magus to have a weapon in one hand; it should be read in context of wielding a quarterstaff.

Waffle_Neutral wrote:
I also found this FAQ that relates. James Jacobs confirms that a wizard can wield his quarterstaff in one hand and cast a spell.

James' comments that you linked didn't make it to the official faq, and I'm pretty sure the PRD text I quoted was tweaked in 4th or 5th printing since the date of his posting.

You can always hold a quarterstaff in one hand and cast spells with the other free hand. Wielding the quarterstaff to be able to threaten squares and attack with it, however, requires two hands.

Quarterstaff Mastery isn't really worth the feat unless your a staff magus archetype magus.


Here is where this topic has come up before.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
WRoy wrote:
Waffle_Neutral wrote:


You can already fight with a quarterstaff one-handed, because it's a double weapon. Why is this restated in this feat? The only thing this feat does is let you take another feat. If you're taking this, you're probably a monk, and there are so many better options.

You cannot fight with a double weapon one-handed. You can either use it as a double weapon, striking with both ends, or you can use it as a two-handed weapon and strike with one end.

As Dabbler mentioned, it's mainly used by casters to let them have a weapon readied in one hand while leaving the other free for spellcasting. The magus, in particular, uses this feat in conjunction with its spell combat ability.

The feat seems to have been specifically created for the staff magus, and for those fighters who want to build funky staff and weapon combinations.

And as you can see, you were wrong one premise. You can HOLD a quarterstaff in one hand, so you can cast with another like a typical wizard, but you can't effectively fight with a staff with one hand unless you've taken on the training the feat represents.


The feat sounds kind of stupid to me.

Another good question is why the quarterstaff isn't a tripping weapon.

This is an all-time classic tripping weapon, but it doesn't have that quality.

3.x missed the ball on this too.


I find the feat pointless for a different reason: the club is already a free, 1d6 damage, 1H bludgeoning weapon (which means you can also 2H it for 1.5x str to damage). It can also be thrown.

A feat to use a quarterstaff one handed is hilariously worthless.

Grand Lodge

Is there not a bo staff now that does all the cool stuff you want to do with a quarterstaff?


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Is there not a bo staff now that does all the cool stuff you want to do with a quarterstaff?

There are a couple of quarterstaff-specific feats, I guess.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Is there not a bo staff now that does all the cool stuff you want to do with a quarterstaff?

Not really. The Bo only has double, blocking, and monk, which is sad to see.


You guys realize that this was probably a class ability to make the staff magus work that was turned into a feat later, right?


It's obviously for your Gandalf-esque sword and staff builds. ^_^

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
sunbeam wrote:

The feat sounds kind of stupid to me.

Another good question is why the quarterstaff isn't a tripping weapon.

This is an all-time classic tripping weapon, but it doesn't have that quality.

3.x missed the ball on this too.

You can trip with any weapon. The only thing that the trip quality gives you is the option to drop the weapon to avoid a counter trip attempt from the opponent if your attempt fails.

So yes you can trip with the staff, You're just not immune to your opponent making a grab for the end and tripping YOU if you fluff up.

Grand Lodge

Gandalf uses the staff for magic, he fights with a sword.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Gandalf uses the staff for magic, he fights with a sword.

He does a bit of both actually.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:
I find the feat pointless for a different reason: the club is already a free, 1d6 damage, 1H bludgeoning weapon (which means you can also 2H it for 1.5x str to damage). It can also be thrown.

But you cannot get a Club of Healing or a Club of Fire, can you?

StreamOfTheSky wrote:
A feat to use a quarterstaff one handed is hilariously worthless.

Unless you want to look like Gandalf in Return of the King, fighting with sword and staff.


So you spend a feat to use a quaterstaff in the same way you can already use a club, just to "look like Gandalf." If you like spending feats on stuff just to look cool for no actual mechanical effect, enjoy!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Use a club and call it a staff.


No need to be a dick.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can call it that too, if you want.

Shadow Lodge

There are plenty of role playing reasons to avoid a club and use a staff ... if you don't see them fine, but others do.


TOZ wrote:
You can call it that too, if you want.

*falls over laughing*

But yeah, I agree with TOZ. Just use a club. Nothing's stopping you from making a club that cast spells as a staff if you want it to also be magical.


This is the funniest thread of the week.

Sovereign Court

STAFF MAGUS Question :
Level 1 - Is Weapon Focus (quarterstaff) a FEAT in the STAFF Magus build that can be selected at 1st Level??

If so, am I allowed to take the Specialization Feat in Quarterstaff for this STAFF Magus as my 1 FEAT at 1st LvlT? Effectively getting credit for WPN FOCUS and being able to ignore the 4th Lvl Fighter prerequisites as stated on the SRD.
I'm creating the 1st Level for PFS using Hero Labs but I get errors while attempting to do this. It also disables the WPN FOCUS Feat because of the build.....as well as the WPN Specialization FEAT as a 1st level character.


Spellcraft: 1d20 + 5 ⇒ (16) + 5 = 21

Whoa, someone just cast Animate Thread!

So, Let's see how to answer your question. First thing we do is look at the prerequisites of the Weapon Focus feat.

Feats wrote:

Weapon Focus (Combat)

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

So, you have to have a +1 BAB, which the Magus does not have at first level. Does the Magus let you ignore the prerequisites for this feat?

Staff Magus wrote:
Quarterstaff Master (Ex): At 1st level, the staff magus gains the Quarterstaff Master feat as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the normal prerequisites. He only gains the benefit of this feat when wearing no armor or light armor.

The only feat it lets you ignore the prerequisites for is Quarterstaff Master. So, no. It does not allow you to take that feat at first level.

In all cases, you must meet the requirements of a feat in order to take it, unless a class feature gives it to you as a bonus feat.


what you can do with this feat is a ranger (or slayer) with a 1 level dip in staff magus who can then have TWF without prerquisite and get weapon specialization at level 3.
And for fights where AC might be more important than offence you can even combint it with a shield because you can wield the staff as a one-handed weapon.

Sovereign Court

Umbranus wrote:

what you can do with this feat is a ranger (or slayer) with a 1 level dip in staff magus who can then have TWF without prerquisite and get weapon specialization at level 3.

And for fights where AC might be more important than offence you can even combint it with a shield because you can wield the staff as a one-handed weapon.

Thanks for the replay and clarification. I'm not sure what I gain with Quarterstaff Master and it kind of doesn't make sense that he wouldn't have WPN focus included with that FEAT as part of the Archetype build. But I understand that is da rules and I guess Hero Labs catches it too. LOL ! Thank again...quick reply.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Why is Quaterstaff Mastery even a feat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.