Question about Polearm Master

[JamesT]

For the bonus action 1d4 attack, do you add your ability modifier to the damage? Rage damage bonus if you are a Barbarian?

[MeeposFire]

Take this with a grain of salt but I think the rule about not adding attribute bonuses is attributed to the off hand attack of two weapon fighting and not necessarily attacks granted by a bonus action in general. In that case it would depend on whether the bonus action attack granted was described as being an extra attack like an off hand attack.

I think rage bonus applies so long as you are using str as your attack stat on the attack.

[JamesT]

Thank you.

I had the same impression but I'm not sure it's clear

[akaddk]

I'd be inclined to say it's the exact same way as TWF works as it makes sense both from a RAI and RAW perspective. In addition, interpreting it as adding an ability modifier then TWF becomes significantly less attractive and the Polearm Master feat is overpowered.

[Sidmen]

I'd be inclined to say it's the exact same way as TWF works as it makes sense both from a RAI and RAW perspective. In addition, interpreting it as adding an ability modifier then TWF becomes significantly less attractive and the Polearm Master feat is overpowered.

I'd give a big ole shrug, personally. A fighter with Two Weapon fighting and the Dual Wielder feat is going to be at least as well off as a fighter with Great Weapon fighting and the Polearm Master feat - with or without adding STR to the damage from Polearm Master.

The Dual Wielder gets a +1 AC and two 1d8 + STR (or DEX) attacks while the Polearm Master gets to reroll 1's and 2's on his damage, and both a 1d10 + STR attack and a 1d4 + STR attack. So damage is more-or-less equal, with the Polearm Master having a lower minimum (offset by the AC bonus).

The real deciding factor would be the Opportunity Attack with reach from the Polearm Master. Is that worth an extra +3/4 damage on an offhand attack?

[JamesT]

Looked on the official boards, didn't see an answer to this. It's too bad the rules aren't clearer.

[Soras Teva Gee]

From the Basic Rules page 73 under "Making an Attack":


If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

I think that might help.

If you roll to hit you are making an attack and the 1d4 is simply telling you the base damage dice, applying presumed further KISS its not unique thus Strength to hit and thus to damage along with anything else that modifies an attack.

Unless there's something particular to the specific rules, like if it said "deal 1d4 damage" and it was automatic and the word attack is never used.

[Eslin]

Nope, it's an extra attack except the base damage is 1d4. No reason strength/wisdom/charisma mod (hello shillelagh!) wouldn't be applied.

[akaddk]

If you roll to hit you are making an attack and the 1d4 is simply telling you the base damage dice, applying presumed further KISS its not unique thus Strength to hit and thus to damage along with anything else that modifies an attack.

Oh well then, gee, I'll just add my ability bonus to all my TWF bonus ATTACKS then!

Oh... wait... that's why this thread exists in the first place...

[MeeposFire]

Oh well then, gee, I'll just add my ability bonus to all my TWF bonus ATTACKS then!

Oh... wait... that's why this thread exists in the first place...

Except that TWF has a specific exception to most weapon attacks in that it does not get an attribute bonus to damage. AS far as I recall there is no actual rule saying bonus action attacks, outside of TWF, do not receive an attribute bonus to damage otherwise when a high level valor bard casts a spell and then makes an attack as a bonus action then he would not get his str/dex bonus to damage and I don't think that is the case.

Now I can see this as being done as an off hand weapon but unless it says it is an off hand weapon attack it by default gets an attribute bonus to damage (at least by the rules anyway).

[Soras Teva Gee]

Yeah from Basic Rule pg 74:


Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Actually has two disqualifying causes as a general rule. Only applies to light melee weapons and it specifically says you don't add the modifier to damage in this case, ergo normally you would.

A polearm is not a light melee weapon right?

[EvilAnagram]

When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4.

Yeah, you definitely get to add your bonus. TWF includes specific language to keep you from adding that to your attack, but this one simply says that you get to make another attack with a certain damage die for the weapon. Add that modifier.

It does suck that the basic spear doesn't really benefit from this feat. Nor do lances or tridents.

[Yuki Akuma]

Well, when you think about it, lances, spears and tridents are for stabbing, whereas halberds, glaives and staves involve swinging them. It's easier to imagine flowing from a swing into a back swing than flowing from a stab into one.

In my view, anyway.

[EvilAnagram]

Well, when you think about it, lances, spears and tridents are for stabbing, whereas halberds, glaives and staves involve swinging them. It's easier to imagine flowing from a swing into a back swing than flowing from a stab into one.

In my view, anyway.

Yes, but they also don't benefit from the other half of the feat, which allows players wielding halberds, glaives, quarterstaffs, and pikes to make opportunity attacks when someone enters their reach. I guess I get why spears and tridents don't benefit, but lances are only good at reach.

Also, holy crap does this feat stack with Sentinel nicely.

[hymer]

lances are only good at reach.

Lances are kinda weird. Their real strength is of course being wielded one-handed from a mount. I don't really know how you're supposed to wield a lance two-handed, but them's the rules.


Also, holy crap does this feat stack with Sentinel nicely.

My sentiment also.

[EvilAnagram]

Lances are kinda weird. Their real strength is of course being wielded one-handed from a mount. I don't really know how you're supposed to wield a lance two-handed, but them's the rules.

Well, historical military lances (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Charge_of_Pozna%C5%84_Cavalery_during_November_Upr ising.JPG/800px-Charge_of_Pozna%C5%84_Cavalery_during_November_Upr ising.JPG), as opposed to jousting lances, were basically spears with a handle and circle guard. You could still grip the shaft in your off-hand and wield it as a two-handed weapon if you wanted to. I doubt anyone ever has, but you could.

[akaddk]

I love it how most people on this forum seem to automatically assume the best possible mechanical benefit of any ruling.

[EvilAnagram]

I love it how most people on this forum seem to automatically assume the best possible mechanical benefit of any ruling.

Aside from applying the language of a different rule to this one, is there any reason in RAW you can think of that would suggest you can't add the ability modifier?

[MustacheFart]

Now here is the question nobody has asked. If you are a Monk with the Polearm Master feat and you use the Quarterstaff (a specified "monk weapon") would you still only do 1d4 base damage with the extra attack from polearm master or could you use your scaled monk damage?

[hymer]

Now here is the question nobody has asked. If you are a Monk with the Polearm Master feat and you use the Quarterstaff (a specified "monk weapon") would you still only do 1d4 base damage with the extra attack from polearm master or could you use your scaled monk damage?

I'd say specific feat beats general monk rule. You'd be stuck with 1d4.

[MustacheFart]

I'd say specific feat beats general monk rule. You'd be stuck with 1d4.

Well, the class feature states that you can replace the damage of your monk weapon. That's a monk weapon.

[EvilAnagram]

Now here is the question nobody has asked. If you are a Monk with the Polearm Master feat and you use the Quarterstaff (a specified "monk weapon") would you still only do 1d4 base damage with the extra attack from polearm master or could you use your scaled monk damage?

Since you fulfill the requirements for using each bonus action, you have the option of using either bonus action. When one is clearly superior, use that.


I'd say specific feat beats general monk rule. You'd be stuck with 1d4.

Both rules are equally specific.

[hymer]

Having looked at the language of the feat, it does specify that you're still attacking with the same weapon and gives it a damage die. So I agree, the monk could use his Martial Arts damage instead.

[MustacheFart]

Since you fulfill the requirements for using each bonus action, you have the option of using either bonus action. When one is clearly superior, use that.



Both rules are equally specific.

Oh yeah, it's an incredibly moot point now that I think about it because if you're a Monk you can just use it's bonus action to make an unarmed attack (same bludgeon damage) with the scaled Monk dice instead of the feat's extra attack.

The question is how valuable is the AoO generation on them entering your range part of the feat?

(I wish the Monk weapons were explicitly defined. I'd love a monk with an actual reach weapon)

[ambartanen]

(I wish the Monk weapons were explicitly defined. I'd love a monk with an actual reach weapon)

They are defined and it seems reach weapons are not an option.


...monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property.

[hymer]

The question is how valuable is the AoO generation on them entering your range part of the feat?

Unless you have other stuff to do with your reaction, I'd say it's pretty good on its own (but really good with Sentinel + reach, of course). People coming over to you is likely to happen a whole lot more than people leaving your reach.


(I wish the Monk weapons were explicitly defined. I'd love a monk with an actual reach weapon)

I'd like an explicit list too. But what are you planning to do with reach?

[EvilAnagram]

Explicit list of Monk Weapons, as per PHB:

Club
Dagger
Handaxe
Javelin
Light Hammer
Mace
Quarterstaff
Shortsword
Sickle
Spear
Unarmed Strike


Better?

[MustacheFart]

Unless you have other stuff to do with your reaction, I'd say it's pretty good on its own (but really good with Sentinel + reach, of course). People coming over to you is likely to happen a whole lot more than people leaving your reach.



I'd like an explicit list too. But what are you planning to do with reach?


Yeah it does say short swords and simple weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property. Though, there's a later paragraph about custom monk weapons that kind of muttles it.

I really wish the spear was still a reach weapon. It's funny they included the quarterstaff in the polearm master feat when it's not a reach weapon and the rest listed are.

I'd only want reach just to expand my range of generating AoO's.

[MustacheFart]

Explicit list of Monk Weapons, as per PHB:

Club
Dagger
Handaxe
Javelin
Light Hammer
Mace
Quarterstaff
Shortsword
Sickle
Spear
Unarmed Strike


Better?

Haha, thanks.

I was more referring to this paragraph:


Certain monasteries use specialized forms of the
monk weapons. For example, you might use a club
that is two lengths of wood connected by a short chain
(called a nunchaku) or a sickle with a shorter, straighter
blade (called a kama). Whatever name you use for a
monk weapon, you can use the game statistics provided
for the weapon in chapter 5.

Obviously, it's talking about refluffing simple weapons but it is a little ambiguous. Besides, historically speaking there were many cultures who's people fit the description of Monks yet used weapons more similar to Glaives.

[EvilAnagram]

Yeah it does say short swords and simple weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property. Though, there's a later paragraph about custom monk weapons that kind of muttles it.
The custom monk weapons just means that you can describe the weapon you're wielding as something with an Eastern theme if you want to. You can call it a tonfa or nunchaku, but it will have the stats of a club. Same with dao and a shortsword. Or a naginata and a spear.

[ambartanen]

Yeah, it seems to be saying you can add whatever flavor you feel like but they will still be a club and a sickle stat-wise.

[hymer]

@ EvilAnagram: Thanks! Though that's not really what needs clearing up. :smallsmile:


I'd only want reach just to expand my range of generating AoO's.

Just for clarity: Without the feat, reach could actually reduce your generation of AoO somewhat. More people are likely to come into your reach, but once there, they can move about much more without provoking. But, of course, the feat fixes that.

[EvilAnagram]

MustacheFart, I know you like the Way of Shadow Monk, but that doesn't mean you have to ninja me.


Obviously, it's talking about refluffing simple weapons but it is a little ambiguous. Besides, historically speaking there were many cultures who's people fit the description of Monks yet used weapons more similar to Glaives.
Yeah, but monks who used slashing polearms tended to focus on the use of the polearm more than a combination of it an other strikes. Masters who used clubs and swords of various sorts really did (and do) blend hand and foot strikes into the use of the weapon. Polearm techniques tend to focus more on keeping your opponent away from you. So, purely from a historical stance, D&D actually gets something right for once. You can still have a glaive-wielding monk, but he can't slash at someone ten feet away, then follow up on it with a few jabs.

[MustacheFart]

MustacheFart, I know you like the Way of Shadow Monk, but that doesn't mean you have to ninja me.


Yeah, but monks who used slashing polearms tended to focus on the use of the polearm more than a combination of it an other strikes. Masters who used clubs and swords of various sorts really did (and do) blend hand and foot strikes into the use of the weapon. Polearm techniques tend to focus more on keeping your opponent away from you. So, purely from a historical stance, D&D actually gets something right for once. You can still have a glaive-wielding monk, but he can't slash at someone ten feet away, then follow up on it with a few jabs.

Actually, you would be surprised at how much hand to hand is still done while weilding a glaive by some of those martial artists. Maneuvers such as propelling yourself off of your weapon to deliver a kick, disarming their weapon to follow up with a punch or kick, etc...all common moves. Typically, those following that way of fighting would have feather or some other distraction on the end of their weapon. Something to distract you while they delivered an attack or closed the gap with you.

[Vhaluus]

If I could add on a question of my own about polearm master.

Correct me if I'm wrong but RAW:

One could wield a quarterstaff and apply the +2 damage from dueling, then make a second attack at d4 with polearm master and apply the +2 damage from dueling again?

[HugeC]

Why isn't a spear on the list of weapons for polearm master? Isn't it a polearm? Why a quarterstaff but not a spear? Grumble grumble.

[akaddk]

If I could add on a question of my own about polearm master.

Correct me if I'm wrong but RAW:

One could wield a quarterstaff and apply the +2 damage from dueling, then make a second attack at d4 with polearm master and apply the +2 damage from dueling again?

Sure, but you'd have to wield it one-handed as opposed to two-handed, reducing it to d6.

[Vhaluus]

Another idea to exploit polearm master:

-Other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter you reach

combine with war caster:

-when a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at that creature ,rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.

finally warlocks repelling blast:

-push creature 10ft back with each blast

So basically creature enters your reach, you trigger AoE, instead of AoE you blast it however many times with your eldritch blast and knock it back outside your reach.

[TomPliss]

You use your reaction to make an AoO, and you only have one per turn, so you only get to repell ONE enemy ONCE per turn ;)

[Vhaluus]

You use your reaction to make an AoO, and you only have one per turn, so you only get to repell ONE enemy ONCE per turn ;)

true, but it's still a handy ability to have. more battlefield control is always good particularly for a caster.

[TomPliss]

And it costs 2 features that will help you in almost no other situation.
So many better possibilities :/

[Vhaluus]

And it costs 2 features that will help you in almost no other situation.
So many better possibilities :/

urm what? Warcaster is a very solid take for any spellcaster, including a warlock. furthermore it would hardly be the worst thing in the world for warlock to take a quarterstaff as his pact weapon and polearm master.

I mean it's niche but none of the build is really useless or even mediocre

[Giant2005]

Another idea to exploit polearm master:

-Other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter you reach

combine with war caster:

-when a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at that creature ,rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.

finally warlocks repelling blast:

-push creature 10ft back with each blast

So basically creature enters your reach, you trigger AoE, instead of AoE you blast it however many times with your eldritch blast and knock it back outside your reach.

You are better off doing that Strategy with a Battle Master and his Pushing Attack. That way you don't run the risk of your DM vetoing the idea on the basis that an AAO gained by using a Polearm should be made with that Polearm.

[Eslin]

How would they veto it? I've reread the feat many times, it doesn't say you have to make the attack of opportunity with the polearm, just that you get one.

Side note, the warlock way gets you between 10 and 40 feet of knockback.

[Giant2005]

How would they veto it? I've reread the feat many times, it doesn't say you have to make the attack of opportunity with the polearm, just that you get one.

Have you ever played with a DM? They are always making common sense rulings - that is kind of their job.

[MustacheFart]

Have you ever played with a DM? They are always making common sense rulings - that is kind of their job.

Eh, I disagree. I am with Eslin. The common sense behind the feat is that you've become a master of reach. You can use to exploit an opportunity in your opponents defense as he moves to you. Now war caster has taught you that such opportunities can be utilized with magic as well as weaponry. Not much of a stretch to me.

As for it requiring two features and being pretty situational, I think it would come in more handy then you think. It's only 1 time per turn so it's not very overpowered but it gives you a bit more defense to keep someone off of you. Also with repelling blast (if I am understanding it right) you could potentially push multiple enemies off cliffs/down pits/etc.

And now I can't decide between Eldritch Spear or Repelling blast. Either increase range of eldritch blast to 300 or add a push to it. Devil's sight is already one of my picks for my dip into warlock. Eldritch Spear seems like it would piss DMs off more as that's a pretty nutty range for a scaling attack.

[Sartharina]

They are defined and it seems reach weapons are not an option.I really hate that Quarterstaves are no longer Monk weapons. :(

[EvilAnagram]

I really hate that Quarterstaves are no longer Monk weapons. :(

They are. They are simple melee weapons, and they have neither the Heavy nor the Two-Handed property.