Too much a nerf?

[ZenBear]

So it seems most agree that Polearm Master is crazy strong. Would it be too much of a nerf to remove the bonus action attack, or at least make it not receive STR/DEX mod to damage?

[JAL_1138]

So it seems most agree that Polearm Master is crazy strong. Would it be too much of a nerf to remove the bonus action attack, or at least make it not receive STR/DEX mod to damage?

Just patch it to require quarterstaves to be wielded two-handed to get the bonus attack, and it should be fine.

[ZenBear]

Just patch it to require quarterstaves to be wielded two-handed to get the bonus attack, and it should be fine.

I already do that, but according to number crunch others have posted PAM seems flat superior to pretty much all other weapon styles even without the duelist qstaff exploit.
Agree/Disagree?

[Giant2005]

Get rid of the 1D4 damage and replace it with the weapon's full, normal damage but no ability bonus. That is more balanced imo.

[JAL_1138]

Consider that it requires no shield, no holy symbol, no spell component pouch, doesn't allow sneak attack, and uses up the bonus action. No reason it shouldn't be somewhat potent to compensate.

[SharkForce]

I already do that, but according to number crunch others have posted PAM seems flat superior to pretty much all other weapon styles even without the duelist qstaff exploit.
Agree/Disagree?

superior DPR, perhaps. i wouldn't describe it as superior in other ways.

for example, it requires a feat. that's not terrible for fighters, which mostly want either strength or dex, and then constituation.

it's quite painful for a paladin or a barbarian, both of whom want 3 attributes as high as they can get them (strength, dex, and con for a barbarian, strength or dex, con, and charisma for a paladin).

even for fighters, it's taking the place of other feats, such as heavy armour mastery.

as noted, it also requires not using a shield (if you houserule that a one-handed quarterstaff doesn't count). that's a pretty significant drawback in itself.

the bonus action? well, depending on situation GWM might give you one anyways, and shield master can give you a bonus action shove that deals no damage directly but can be worth advantage on the rest of your attacks.

but mostly, i'd rather see more feats that give those options for different styles (while preferably not giving every style all the feats, so that you don't have to take a dozen different feats to be a master in a single style).

[Tenmujiin]

Consider that it requires no shield, no holy symbol, no spell component pouch, doesn't allow sneak attack, and uses up the bonus action. No reason it shouldn't be somewhat potent to compensate.

Compare it to dual wielding. Assuming the appropriate feat and maxed stat but no fighting style or extra attack we have 1d10+1d4+10 vs 2d8+5 which gives us 18 vs 14 with the 14 giving +1 AC and the 18 giving the reaction attack on enemy entering reach and +5ft reach. With an extra attack this goes to 2d10+1d4+15 vs 3d8+10 which gives us 28.5 vs 23.5.

I was originally going to argue against nerfing polearm master until I just typed those numbers and with great weapon fighting style generally considered better than twf and higher numbers of attacks benefiting polearm master more than twf it does seem a bit powerful.

[SharkForce]

it seems too powerful because you compared it to TWF, which is pretty much awful unless you're a rogue (for now at least).

there is no need to take the good options away from fighters. the only problem with polearm mastery is that not all styles get equally good feat support, and therefore the weaker styles are punished. bring the weaker styles up, not the stronger styles down.

(PS: sword and board is not one of those weaker styles).

[JAL_1138]

Compare it to dual wielding. Assuming the appropriate feat and maxed stat but no fighting style or extra attack we have 1d10+1d4+10 vs 2d8+5 which gives us 18 vs 14 with the 14 giving +1 AC and the 18 giving the reaction attack on enemy entering reach and +5ft reach. With an extra attack this goes to 2d10+1d4+15 vs 3d8+10 which gives us 28.5 vs 23.5.

I was originally going to argue against nerfing polearm master until I just typed those numbers and with great weapon fighting style generally considered better than twf and higher numbers of attacks benefiting polearm master more than twf it does seem a bit powerful.

Lose 5 dpr and reach for +1 AC and the opportunity to Sneak Attack if you miss the first time (which you cannot do at all with a polearm) seems like a fair trade.

[ZenBear]

it seems too powerful because you compared it to TWF, which is pretty much awful unless you're a rogue (for now at least).

there is no need to take the good options away from fighters. the only problem with polearm mastery is that not all styles get equally good feat support, and therefore the weaker styles are punished. bring the weaker styles up, not the stronger styles down.

(PS: sword and board is not one of those weaker styles).
How do you propose we bring up TWF then? Without a more serious overhaul of the rules than my proposed redaction of half a feat I haven't yet seen anyone propose a legitimate buff.

Lose 5 dpr and reach for +1 AC and the opportunity to Sneak Attack if you miss the first time (which you cannot do at all with a polearm) seems like a fair trade.
Rogues can't use any polearms except Qstaff anyway and it isn't finesse so no Rogue should ever use one. In the case of a Fighter things get more disparate.

From what I've seen, S&B with Duelist and Shield Master is not as damaging as GWF but has +2 AC, GWF is the highest damage, and TWF is supposed to be the middle ground of +1 AC with higher DPR than S&B but lower than GWF. Whether it works out exactly that way I'm not sure but it seems pretty close, all with an equal investment of fighting style and feat. Then you take Polearm Master with GWF feat and style and you're getting at or near GWF level damage with superior action economy for the cost of 1 extra feat. You don't get SA or bonus AC, but the extra attack and AoOs more than makes up for that. Add in the abuses synergies with Smite/Improved Smite, Lifedrinker, Quarterstaff, Relentless Avenger, etc. and you have a style that dominates all others. Needs a small nerf, IMO.

[SharkForce]

buffing TWF is a bit tricky to figure out. personally, i'd be inclined to let the bonus action go up to +2 attacks if you have the extra attack class feature and the feat. that way, TWF becomes the style for getting many attacks, while great weapons becomes the style for fewer attacks that have a larger impact each.

the only downside i can think of with that is that the TWF feat probably becomes too important for a TWF build to not take. then again, that's possibly not a bad thing in 5th edition where feats are, after all, supposed to represent character-defining traits.

however, that may be too much. i haven't run the math on what you can do with that, and it might tend towards pushing barbarians into TWF almost exclusively because of their rage bonus, which feels a bit off. an alternate possibility might be to have the feat additionally cause disadvantage on attack rolls only against the opponent you've attacked with your off-hand (i know i've seen someone wanting TWF to become a somewhat more defensive style; this would probably favor them) to represent that you've got an extra weapon for parrying (and threatening them offensively) with.

[Giant2005]

buffing TWF is a bit tricky to figure out. personally, i'd be inclined to let the bonus action go up to +2 attacks if you have the extra attack class feature and the feat. that way, TWF becomes the style for getting many attacks, while great weapons becomes the style for fewer attacks that have a larger impact each.

the only downside i can think of with that is that the TWF feat probably becomes too important for a TWF build to not take. then again, that's possibly not a bad thing in 5th edition where feats are, after all, supposed to represent character-defining traits.

however, that may be too much. i haven't run the math on what you can do with that, and it might tend towards pushing barbarians into TWF almost exclusively because of their rage bonus, which feels a bit off. an alternate possibility might be to have the feat additionally cause disadvantage on attack rolls only against the opponent you've attacked with your off-hand (i know i've seen someone wanting TWF to become a somewhat more defensive style; this would probably favor them) to represent that you've got an extra weapon for parrying (and threatening them offensively) with.

What if the TWF Fighting Style *Ranger, Fighter) didn't add ability mod to damage but instead had your bonus action emulate the number of attacks you get from an attack action?
As long as things like Horde Breaker count, Rangers will benefit from the change and so would Fighters obviously. Everyone else would be exactly the same as they are in canon.

[ZenBear]

buffing TWF is a bit tricky to figure out. personally, i'd be inclined to let the bonus action go up to +2 attacks if you have the extra attack class feature and the feat. that way, TWF becomes the style for getting many attacks, while great weapons becomes the style for fewer attacks that have a larger impact each.

the only downside i can think of with that is that the TWF feat probably becomes too important for a TWF build to not take. then again, that's possibly not a bad thing in 5th edition where feats are, after all, supposed to represent character-defining traits.

however, that may be too much. i haven't run the math on what you can do with that, and it might tend towards pushing barbarians into TWF almost exclusively because of their rage bonus, which feels a bit off. an alternate possibility might be to have the feat additionally cause disadvantage on attack rolls only against the opponent you've attacked with your off-hand (i know i've seen someone wanting TWF to become a somewhat more defensive style; this would probably favor them) to represent that you've got an extra weapon for parrying (and threatening them offensively) with.
Number crunch on added attacks would be nice. I think two off-hand attacks no matter how many Extra Attacks you get (Fighters) should keep it balanced, but that's just mind's-eyeballing it.

I was actually very frustrated to learn my plans for a dual-handaxe wielding Barbarian was subpar due to Brutal Critical. A boost to TWF would hopefully make the build closer to par with GWF Barbs.

I think the +1 AC from feat should be enough of a defensive bonus. Perhaps even tack it on to anyone using two weapons and give the feat even more killing power in some fashion?

{scrubbed}
Because it's silly to imagine anyone spinning a quarterstaff one-handed and striking with both ends in the time it takes the average warrior to land a single sword strike. And it obsoletes any other single-handed weapon (like the aforementioned sword) which is beyond silly.

[Giant2005]

Because it's silly to imagine anyone spinning a quarterstaff one-handed and striking with both ends in the time it takes the average warrior to land a single sword strike. And it obsoletes any other single-handed weapon (like the aforementioned sword) which is beyond silly.

That isn't a consequence of staves being better weapons. It is a consequence of those that have heavily trained in staves being better than those that are moderately trained in swords. The issue is that there are no feats to increase the damage of other one-handed weapons, so sword users don't have access to the same level of expertise as staff users.

[ZenBear]

{scrubbed}

There are many things in D&D that are silly. But using the qstaff one handed is a silliness that also has such a significant mechanical advantage over other options that it becomes a legitimate problem in my book, so I houserule it out. I've aired my own distaste for several of the things on your list but not all of them can be fixed without a large overhaul of the system which I don't care to do. Some things you just have to put up with, some things you don't.


That isn't a consequence of staves being better weapons. It is a consequence of those that have heavily trained in staves being better than those that are moderately trained in swords. The issue is that there are no feats to increase the damage of other one-handed weapons, so sword users don't have access to the same level of expertise as staff users.


{scrubbed}

If a feat ever comes out, or an acceptable homebrew is contrived, that allows the same expertise in swords, axes, hammers and other martial one-handed weapons, I may consider allowing the one-handed qstaff business. Until then, not at my table.

[Giant2005]

If a feat ever comes out, or an acceptable homebrew is contrived, that allows the same expertise in swords, axes, hammers and other martial one-handed weapons, I may consider allowing the one-handed qstaff business. Until then, not at my table.

Why allow Crossbow Expert if it just means that Crossbows will be superior to Shortbows?
Why allow Polearm Expert if it just means that Polearms will be superior to other two-handed weapons?
Why allow Great Weapon Mastery if it just means that two-handed weapons will be superior to dual-wielding?
Why allow feats at all if you want homogenization?

[Strill]

How do you propose we bring up TWF then? Without a more serious overhaul of the rules than my proposed redaction of half a feat I haven't yet seen anyone propose a legitimate buff.

Allow it to make two attacks with the bonus action after level 11 or so. That's when it begins to really fall off compared to other options.

You'd probably need to include some damage penalty though. I think a whole second attack might be a bit too much.


How do you propose we bring up TWF then? Without a more serious overhaul of the rules than my proposed redaction of half a feat I haven't yet seen anyone propose a legitimate buff.

Rogues can't use any polearms except Qstaff anyway and it isn't finesse so no Rogue should ever use one. In the case of a Fighter things get more disparate.

From what I've seen, S&B with Duelist and Shield Master is not as damaging as GWF but has +2 AC, GWF is the highest damage, and TWF is supposed to be the middle ground of +1 AC with higher DPR than S&B but lower than GWF. Whether it works out exactly that way I'm not sure but it seems pretty close, all with an equal investment of fighting style and feat. Then you take Polearm Master with GWF feat and style and you're getting at or near GWF level damage with superior action economy for the cost of 1 extra feat. You don't get SA or bonus AC, but the extra attack and AoOs more than makes up for that. Add in the abuses synergies with Smite/Improved Smite, Lifedrinker, Quarterstaff, Relentless Avenger, etc. and you have a style that dominates all others. Needs a small nerf, IMO.

No, with Shield Master, Sword and board is actually as strong or stronger than TWF. Advantage on all your attacks, and potentially allies' attacks, is a big deal. Two-weapon fighting is the weakest fighting style.

[b4ndito]

The quarterstaff isn't a reach weapon did they attribute it to this feat accidentally? It seems goofy to include it

[SharkForce]

doubling your number of attacks would be too strong for fighters, would basically crowd out everything else the way polearms are kinda doing for the DPR crowd right now.

two extra attacks for everyone regardless of class features makes rogues too strong with extremely reliable damage.

[b4ndito]

{scrubbed}

"You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons"
"other creatures provoke opportunity attacks when they enter your reach"

I would deny the feat to the quarterstaff. That's the only problem I see with the feat

[HoarsHalberd]

"You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons"
"other creatures provoke opportunity attacks when they enter your reach"

I would deny the feat to the quarterstaff. That's the only problem I see with the feat

The second reach is referring to how far a character can reach. One cannot keep a foe at bay with the quarterstaff as their reach is 5ft. Just like how Crossbow mastery only gives the bonus action attack to hand crossbows, only certain parts of the feat are limited.
The only interaction that is broken, imo, is quarterstaff+duelling. It breaks verisimilitude, and completely overwhelms both dual wielding and normal duelling. 1d6+7+1d4+7 = 20 average. 1d8+5 *2 = 19 average. With -1 AC and no ability to get an opportunity attack against approaching foes for the same cost with dual wielding on top of lower damage at the start and not eeking ahead until the fighter's third attack. Thus a simple fix is one clause added. "Or a quarterstaff, when wielded with two hands."

EDIT - Sorry wrong. Dual wielding never catches up. 1d6+7 average is 10.5 1d8+5 average is 9.5

[Easy_Lee]

People overestimate the usefulness of polearm mastery. It's a good feat, but there are plenty enough uses of bonus actions as-is. Monks can already bonus attack for free, and it does more damage than polearm mastery once they gain a few levels, but I don't see anyone complaining about how OP monks are. Even barbarians, who are less likely to have a use for their bonus action, have difficulty affording the feat at all with their MADness.

Polearm mastery is a good choice for many builds, and is notably the best choice for blade pact warlocks. That said, crossbow expert builds are often better, and shield master builds are certainly viable. The reaction attack from polearm mastery is nice, but it's less reliable than sentinel.

So I don't think it needs a nerf.

[silveralen]

I'm unsure about that feat personally from a balance perspective. GWM and Sharpshooter boost damage a lot but have a trade off. The two weapon fighting feat is only a couple extra points on average. Shield master boosts accuracy slightly via advantage.

It just seems to be too big of a flat damage boost compared to existing feats. It is too good.

Personally, I'd say don't let the second atack gain attribute mod unless they have two weapon fighting style.

But the real weakest style isn't duel wielding, it's bastard sword without a shield. No real benefit to using a versatile weapon two handed, can't use GWM. Dueling style offers more damage. Can't even benefit from a feat at all. Sad considering that's one of the most common style in fiction.

[HoarsHalberd]

{scrubbed}

Compared to GWF - 2d6+mod +0.05% chance of 2d6+mod + around 1 from GWF (generous) vs 1d6+mod+Duelling 1d4+mod+dueling Assuming +3 str. 11.5 vs 16. at level 5 extra attack and +4 mod. 25 vs 27.5. At third attack. 3*(12.6) 37.8 vs 3*(10.5) + (9.5) = 40.5 At fourth attack. 4*(12.6) = 50.4 4*(10.5) + 9.5 = 51.5 More DPR, more AC. My maths in my prior post was wrong and I'll edit. It's broken. Best melee build in the game. Only GWF action surging or using -5+10 can do more damage and will always have 2 lower AC. The combo is even more broken for paladins and barbarians.

The versimillitude was just an aside. Yes other things don't make sense but there's no need to add to it.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm unsure about that feat personally from a balance perspective. GWM and Sharpshooter boost damage a lot but have a trade off. The two weapon fighting feat is only a couple extra points on average. Shield master boosts accuracy slightly via advantage.

It just seems to be too big of a flat damage boost compared to existing feats. It is too good.

Personally, I'd say don't let the second atack gain attribute mod unless they have two weapon fighting style.

But the real weakest style isn't duel wielding, it's bastard sword without a shield. No real benefit to using a versatile weapon two handed, can't use GWM. Dueling style offers more damage. Can't even benefit from a feat at all. Sad considering that's one of the most common style in fiction.

The boost in damage offered by polearm mastery is less than the damage boost from crossbow expert. Consider two attacks with a greatsword vs three wirh polearm mastery (anyone who can use a polearm can use a greatsword) and compare to longbow vs crossbow expert.

Greatsword: 2*2d6+10=24
Polearm master: 2*1d10+1d4+15=28.5
Longbow: 2*1d8+10=19
Crossbow Expert: 3*1d6+15=25.5

As we can see, crossbow expert actually adds more damage. In addition, its extra effect of allowing ranged attacks to work without disadvantage in melee is at least as good as polearm mastery's reaction.

This is why I feel that the real problem isn't crossbow expert or polearm mastery. The problem is that these are the only two weapon types for which we have exclusive feat support. There's no versatile mastery, no shortblade mastery, no bow mastery or mace mastery.

In regards to the point you made about versatile, you're absolutely right. One houserule which I believe fixes the problem in part is to allow dueling to work with versatile weapons when they're used two-handed. This increases their maximum damage above a greatsword, but the greatsword rerolling 1's and 2's makes it more consistent. It also allows for a really bitchen champion fighter using a longsword, taking both versatile and two handed fighting styles, and thus being a truly versatile combatant.

[silveralen]

The boost in damage offered by polearm mastery is less than the damage boost from crossbow expert. Consider two attacks with a greatsword vs three wirh polearm mastery (anyone who can use a polearm can use a greatsword) and compare to longbow vs crossbow expert.

Greatsword: 2*2d6+10=24
Polearm master: 2*1d10+1d4+15=28.5
Longbow: 2*1d8+10=19
Crossbow Expert: 3*1d6+15=25.5

As we can see, crossbow expert actually adds more damage. In addition, its extra effect of allowing ranged attacks to work without disadvantage in melee is at least as good as polearm mastery's reaction.

This is why I feel that the real problem isn't crossbow expert or polearm mastery. The problem is that these are the only two weapon types for which we have exclusive feat support. There's no versatile mastery, no shortblade mastery, no bow mastery or mace mastery.

In regards to the point you made about versatile, you're absolutely right. One houserule which I believe fixes the problem in part is to allow dueling to work with versatile weapons when they're used two-handed. This increases their maximum damage above a greatsword, but the greatsword rerolling 1's and 2's makes it more consistent. It also allows for a really bitchen champion fighter using a longsword, taking both versatile and two handed fighting styles, and thus being a truly versatile combatant.

That's a good point crossbow expert completely slipped my mind. In that case... yeah it is tricky. With that in mind I might change my choice to simply altering the feats to apply to any ranged/melee weapon respectively and change the name to rapid aim/quick strikes (since those do kinda fit the idea of both feats if you think about the mechanics).

I like that idea quite a bit. With a bit of feat support (such as the above or a generic power attack feat with no other bonuses) it'd work fine.

[ChubbyRain]

Eh, direct damage is nice and all but is easily countered by a DM without needing to nerf anything. All through normal game play and challenges.

Polearm Master is nice, don't get me wrong but it will usually be used by classes that already *do damage* and it doesn't give you anything new to that. As a DM you know exactly what the player will do with it and their limitations. Which is *damage*.

Resistance to slashing weapons, difficult terrain, darkness, storms/rain (why does every adventure always take place in perfect conditions?), and a number of other environmental factors can slow down the DPR of a Polearm Master (as it can any martial character).

Don't target the character specifically, just add more to the party's surroundings. Hell, force the players to use their reactions more often due to hit and run tactics from monsters and that lowers the PM DPR. The players will have to hold their action and take a reaction to attack, they won't get their BA.

Don't screw with them all the time or anything crazy like that, but there are better ways to controlling HP damage than by nerfing abilities.

If you are nerfing Polearm Master then I'm assuming you are nerfing all the other crazy outliers in the game? That will take a while and a word document to keep track of it.

edit: minor stuff... Plus the monk has a scaling polearm master class feature that can be used to better degree X times per day.

[HoarsHalberd]

Don't target the character specifically, just add more to the party's surroundings. Hell, force the players to use their reactions more often due to hit and run tactics from monsters and that lowers the PM DPR. The players will have to hold their action and take a reaction to attack, they won't get their BA.



Worst tactic ever. PM get an OA on approach and flight and only one reaction to use them on. They won't be holding their action. They'll use it on something else. It gets even worse if they have sentinel feat, a common combo, the hit and runner has wasted an entire turn and is now helpless as they lose all movement if the PM hits. Then he gets to use his turn to attack and BA, then fall back.

[Easy_Lee]

Worst tactic ever. PM get an OA on approach and flight and only one reaction to use them on. They won't be holding their action. They'll use it on something else. It gets even worse if they have sentinel feat, a common combo, the hit and runner has wasted an entire turn and is now helpless as they lose all movement if the PM hits. Then he gets to use his turn to attack and BA, then fall back.

The PM hit and run tactic with sentinel only fully works against an individual, melee-only target with no spells or reach of his own. That's a pretty limited scenario. In other cases, it's useful to be able to do and can prevent you from taking damage from a creature or two some rounds of combat, but isn't game breaking like some claim.

Sentinel on a rogue, using reaction to get an additional sneak attack off on targets who attack anyone else within 5' or try to run away, is a much scarier feature combination.

[ChubbyRain]

Worst tactic ever. PM get an OA on approach and flight and only one reaction to use them on. They won't be holding their action. They'll use it on something else. It gets even worse if they have sentinel feat, a common combo, the hit and runner has wasted an entire turn and is now helpless as they lose all movement if the PM hits. Then he gets to use his turn to attack and BA, then fall back.

I was thinking it was sentinel that got the OA on approach, however you can still use this tactics. Have some of the monsters hold their actions until after the PM goes, then have the monster attack. Some of the monsters will be ranged capable. When the creatures do come in the PM has only their reaction for the round just as if they held their action. Monsters adapt just like players do after all. The end result is the same, one attack per round, but it works out better since then next turn the PM can have their action + bonus action attack. You don't want to always force the PM to abandon their play style.

Again this isn't for use on every round or every fight, oozes won't do this sort of thing. However trained or groups of creatures with at least 10 int will figure this tactic out.

Also, mobs. Mobs are the best tactic against PM or Sentinel, as you only get 1 reaction/turn. Send a few low CR minions at the party and let the PM decide which one to target. The others can walk right past the PM.

[HoarsHalberd]

The PM hit and run tactic with sentinel only fully works against an individual, melee-only target with no spells or reach of his own. That's a pretty limited scenario. In other cases, it's useful to be able to do and can prevent you from taking damage from a creature or two some rounds of combat, but isn't game breaking like some claim.

Sentinel on a rogue, using reaction to get an additional sneak attack off on targets who attack anyone else within 5' or try to run away, is a much scarier feature combination.

This isn't a PM hit and run tactic he and I were talking about. He was talking about trying to use hit and run tactics on a PM user. Ill advised in itself, suicide against a sentinel user. Sentinel and PM is a defensive combo I'm fond of, not because of the potential cheese that doesn't really work in game, but because it allows me to threaten foes attacking allies in a much wider area, 314 sq ft as opposed to 78. Combined with a paladin for riders it's still a hefty 1d10+1d8+5(9/10 if Oathbreaker) reasons to attack me, the heavy armour wearing pseudotank.

To ChubbyRain: Nope, OA on approach from PM, to emulate pike wielders. The movement loss comes from sentinel though.

As for saving actions till the PM's taken his turn. They can't move as part of a readied action, unless the readied action was dash. In which case they've wasted a turn to enter his reach. And losing the mobs turns in order to make you lose your turn and allow your ranged party members free reign would be a more than fair trade to most PM users.

[ChubbyRain]

To ChubbyRain: Nope, OA on approach from PM, to emulate pike wielders. The movement loss comes from sentinel though.


The first round they hold off until after the PM goes, staying away so that the PM can't easily get to them. The second round they go after the PM. Using things like difficult terrain, environmental factors (light), higher ground, and the like to keep the PM at bay. When they attack the PM, the PM gets one attack (OA). If the attack fails or hits, then all the mobs can swarm around the PM and get their attacks in and then dash away.

They will probably be sacrificing 1 ally per round, if the PM hits, but with environmental factors the PM will not be able to effectively lock down creatures. Heck, one kobold, goblin, or whatever just needs to blind the PM somehow (bag over its head), poison, or grapple/restrain the PM. Attacking with disadvantage will lower the DPR, especially if the player took PM and Sentinel as their strength won't be as high as it could have.

Timing of an ambush would help too, perhaps the kobolds or goblins only ambush at night, or in storms, hmmm... The Storm Bandits could even have a few scrolls of control weather...

Which really all this isn't needed as the PM's allies are more dangerous and will be able to help. But there is many ways to get around the DPR of the PM.

Since battles last 3-5 rounds on average (wellll... that's the plan at least) you only need to counter the PM 1 round for this all to be effective. Two rounds if you really want to but that might be a bit much.

You don't use one tactic solo, you use them in conjuncture with each other. I assumed you knew this but I guess what they say is true about assuming.

[HoarsHalberd]

The first round they hold off until after the PM goes, staying away so that the PM can't easily get to them. The second round they go after the PM. Using things like difficult terrain, environmental factors (light), higher ground, and the like to keep the PM at bay. When they attack the PM, the PM gets one attack (OA). If the attack fails or hits, then all the mobs can swarm around the PM and get their attacks in and then dash away.
This tactic requires cunning action, climb speed or double the paladin's move speed+5, as they can't dash if they attack and must rely on their remaining move speed, otherwise the paladin chases them down and slaughters them.


They will probably be sacrificing 1 ally per round, if the PM hits, but with environmental factors the PM will not be able to effectively lock down creatures. Heck, one kobold, goblin, or whatever just needs to blind the PM somehow (bag over its head), poison, or grapple/restrain the PM. Attacking with disadvantage will lower the DPR, especially if the player took PM and Sentinel as their strength won't be as high as it could have.
If a group large enough to lose an ally a round is focussed on frustrating a PM, they are leaving themselves open to all kinds of shenanigans from his party.



Timing of an ambush would help too, perhaps the kobolds or goblins only ambush at night, or in storms, hmmm... The Storm Bandits could even have a few scrolls of control weather...

Which really all this isn't needed as the PM's allies are more dangerous and will be able to help. But there is many ways to get around the DPR of the PM.

Since battles last 3-5 rounds on average (wellll... that's the plan at least) you only need to counter the PM 1 round for this all to be effective. Two rounds if you really want to but that might be a bit much.

You don't use one tactic solo, you use them in conjuncture with each other. I assumed you knew this but I guess what they say is true about assuming.
Except all of these tactics either don't work solo or fall apart to other tactics. -Lots of ambushes at nights or in storms. Rogue in the party chooses skulker. Destroys everything.

As for getting around the DPR of the PM, yes you are doing so, but you could also do so by using full movement to retreat all mobs away from the party as quickly as possible. Lowering the DPR of the paladin is irrelevant if you lower the DPR of your forces more, or expose them to greater risks. And I don't even think the PM's DPR needs lowering that much. Martial classes, on the whole, could use a boost up to its effectiveness.