[Ultimate Magic] Quarterstaff Mastery question

[Orannis]

I have a quick question about the "not needing fighter levels for Weapon Specialization" clause in Quarterstaff Mastery.

What this says to me is that you do not need the "Fighter Level 4" prerequisite on Specialization if you take it for the quarterstaff, meaning a 1st level human Staff Magus (who gets QM for free) could take Weapon Specialization(Quarterstaff) at first level provided he took Focus(Quarterstaff) for his other feat.

The wording is a little vague so, while I am 95% sure this is the correct interpretation, I'd like additional imput or an official ruling.

[Magicdealer]

My interpretation would be that it only overrides the fighter part of the requirement.

That would leave weapon specialization requiring 4th level. Also, I think it would be fair for non-fighter classes to have to wait until the same level as a fighter class to get that benefit :p

[The Chort]

I think you could do it by RAW; there's no character level requirement.

Here's the line in question.

Quote:

You can take the feat Weapon Specialization in the quarterstaff even if you have no levels in fighter.

...and weapon specialization.

Quote:

Weapon Specialization (Combat)

You are skilled at dealing damage with one weapon. Choose one type of weapon (including unarmed strike or grapple) for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon.

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th.

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

[Glutton]

you'll be the most overpowered level 1 to 3 character with a quarterstaff of all time [:

[Thazar]

I agree that it says you can ignore the fighter portion... but not the level portion. It would be odd for a non-fighter to get Weapon Spec before a fighter could.

[Stormfriend]

You can't do it by RAW. Focus requires BAB+1, so you'd have to take it at 3rd level. You wouldn't get Specialisation then until 5th.

If you need a BAB+4 to get it then you wouldn't get Specialisation until 7th, which is a bit harsh, so simply removing the whole Fighter bit seems fine to me. I've no idea what the RAI was though.

You could multiclass, say Magus 2, Fighter 1 and get Specialisation at 3rd potentially, but then you'd be giving up a level of Magus for +2 damage for 2 levels. Really not worth it!

[Orannis]

D'oh! I can't believe I forgot about the +1 BAB pre-req for Weapon Focus!

Anyways, the "removes the fighter requirement but not the level 4 requirement" interpretation was what I assumed was actually intended. It would feel a bit odd for someone to get Spec. before a fighter, even if it is just for a quaterstaff.

Anywho, thanks for all those who chimed in!

[RunebladeX]

correct orannis, it says you do not need levels of fighter to take the feat so just remove fighter from the prequisites and it would look like this-

Weapon Specialization (Combat)
You are skilled at dealing damage with one weapon. Choose one type of weapon (including unarmed strike or grapple) for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon.

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, level 4th.

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

[Patrick Gurdgiel]

Not to dredge up an old issue - but was there ever a firm ruling/errata about using double weapons one-handed.

The double weapon rules say you use a double weapon either as a 1h/light or as a 2h (choosing only one end), but the double trait says:

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.

I can't seem to find anything official that changes that, but isn't that bolded section exactly what Quarterstaff Mastery does?

I'm assuming that the secion I bolded was supposed to say two-handed, not one handed, and then Quarterstaff mastery is basically allowing you to use the "2-handed quarterstaff" one handed similar to how some can use a Bastard sword one-handed.

Any insight is appreciated.

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Patrick Gurdgiel wrote:

Not to dredge up an old issue - but was there ever a firm ruling/errata about using double weapons one-handed.

Yes.

Under normal circumstances, you can't do it.

You can use a smaller-sized double weapon in one hand, but you take a penalty. So, a human could use a small-sized quarterstaff in one hand, but could only strike with one end of it. An ogre could use a human-sized quarterstaff in one-hand, but could only strike with one end of it.

The Quarterstaff Mastery feat gets around that, and lets you use a size-appropriate QS as a one-handed weapon.

[Bobson]

Patrick Gurdgiel wrote:

Not to dredge up an old issue - but was there ever a firm ruling/errata about using double weapons one-handed.

The double weapon rules say you use a double weapon either as a 1h/light or as a 2h (choosing only one end), but the double trait says:

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.

I can't seem to find anything official that changes that, but isn't that bolded section exactly what Quarterstaff Mastery does?

I'm assuming that the secion I bolded was supposed to say two-handed, not one handed, and then Quarterstaff mastery is basically allowing you to use the "2-handed quarterstaff" one handed similar to how some can use a Bastard sword one-handed.

Any insight is appreciated.

I think this is on the wrong thread, but to answer it - normally you wield double weapons as a two-handed weapon which has the option of attacking as if you had a one-handed and a light weapon. But it's still a two-handed weapon that requires two hands free to swing it (but not to hold it). This feat lets you swing it one-handed.

[Blackbird71]

Patryn of Elvenshae wrote:

Patrick Gurdgiel wrote:

Not to dredge up an old issue - but was there ever a firm ruling/errata about using double weapons one-handed.

Yes.

Under normal circumstances, you can't do it.

You can use a smaller-sized double weapon in one hand, but you take a penalty. So, a human could use a small-sized quarterstaff in one hand, but could only strike with one end of it. An ogre could use a human-sized quarterstaff in one-hand, but could only strike with one end of it.

The Quarterstaff Mastery feat gets around that, and lets you use a size-appropriate QS as a one-handed weapon.

Can you cite a source for this ruling? Because every discussion I have found so far on the subject eventually comes down to a reference of a post by James Jacobs which supposedly confirmed that a two-handed weapon that has the "double" property could in fact be wielded in one hand, allowing attacks with only one end. This would seem to make the Quarterstaff Master feat redundant and useless.

This is definitely a confusing topic, brought about by an apparent contradiction in the rules. The rules state that a 2H weapon requires two hands for use. They also state that a double weapon can be used in one hand with the stipulation that only one end of the weapon may be used. Since (so far as I am aware) all double weapons are 2H weapons, the two rules appear to contradict each other. My understanding is that the 2H rule applies broadly to all 2H weapons, but the double subtype provides an exception to the rule, and so 2H weapons that are double weapons can be used one handed, with the drawback of only using one end of the weapon.

For me, this interpretation makes sense as it is reinforced by real-life experience. I've had very little formal training in use of a quarterstaff, but one of the early lessons I was taught was how to use it with one hand. One end of the staff is braced against part of your body (usually tucked under the armpit and held in place with the elbow, but it can also be braced against the waist or leg), while the other end held in hand can be used to strike.

The staff is not usually kept in this position for long, usually just long enough for a couple of strikes or blocks before returning to a two-handed grip or shifted completely to the opposite hand. It's not nearly as effective as using it in both hands, but it does free up one hand to use for a grab, block, or strike, which is usually the motivation for shifting to a one-handed grip in the first place.

So the bottom line then is, does the Quarterstaff Master feat really do anything not already accomplished by the core rules? In my opinion, no, but I would love to hear something official.