is Polearm master just stupidly good?

[Mechaviking]

I´m playing 2 campaigns at the moment:

We did the first session of elemental evil with some encounters and they were pretty fun. A friend of mine decided to be a goliath barbarian and decided on a 15 to physical stats and 8 to all other stat approach, which if quite alright he even played himself roughly in that area and had quite a bit of fun(becoming so drunk that he was poisoned in one encounter and such).

The second has Ravenloft as a setting but isn´t going whole hog on the weird and monster thing and we as the most experienced characters in our village are leading our people(hopefully) to salvation. We had a new player join in and he decided to roll a fighter[BM](and he turned out to be William Wallace) with GWM and Heavy armor mastery.

Neither of the above players picked Polearm master, but as far as I can tell in both cases they would have doubled(or tripled) their damage with one feat. Neither of those players optimize much: one DM´s a lot and is pretty good at it, the other tries but hasn´t grasped it quite yet(literally his second dnd character).

Why aside from fluff reasons wouldn´t a strength based melee character take polearm master?

Also and this might be the reason why: Has anyone ever seen a magical polearm in dnd in a module or adventure, that is one not crafted by another player?

[JNAProductions]

To answer the thread title: Yes. Yes it is.

That's all.

[Mechaviking]

To answer the thread title: Yes. Yes it is.

That's all.

Thanks buddy :D

[Gurka]

It really is the second most viable damage feat after GWM, as far as I'm aware. It's really strong, and if you're attempting to optimize, then it's a must.

Also, is it an official Goliath PC race, or homebrew? If the former, where can I find it. I don't remember seeing it in the DMG or an unearthed arcana yet.

[djreynolds]

Yes, even with the standard point buy in you're taking two to three feats for optimization of it and can max out strength. Am I correct that you do lose out on a little defense without a shield, and AoO's if the opponent has taken mobile feat? But yes, it is powerful.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Not really.

All it does is gives you more damage, something everyone can do. Now at level 1 - 4 this is fantastic, sure, as you and your friends and enemies have low HP. But as you start to have more HP and enemies start to have more HP that one extra attack doesn't really stack up.

Combine it with GWM and all you get is more HP damage.

All it is letting you do is something you can already do, HP damage.

A Feat like Shield Master gives you new options. It allows you to shove with a bonus action. This can help Maneuver enemies or give yourself and allies advantage on attack rolls (which cancels out disadvantage).

Doing 6-9 more points of damage (1d4+Str 5) isn't as great at it seems (past level 4 ish). With GWM (16-19) you need a source of advantage, an ally/yourself cast bless, or wait till higher level to effectively use it.

Even with sentinel it really isn't that great as you only get 1 reaction per round. Hordes laugh at you as one gets stopped and the others rush the squishies.

I would much rather use my bonus actions for spells, TWF (TWF fighting style, I can stat boost or pick up new options with the Feat ), or Cunning action.

[SharkForce]

you do lose out on shield, but if you're going for damage anyways that was pretty much a given.

and imo it is the better feat over GWM. GWM is good when the enemy doesn't have high AC. polearm master is just always good.

(also, with mobile you have to attack first, so if they move up to you, you'll get your OA before they get to deny it. also, most enemies just don't have feats).

official goliath is in the elemental evil free PDF.

edit: oh, forgot to mention... technically you can actually one-hand a staff and use polearm master. some people thing that's fine. some think it's not supposed to be.

[PoeticDwarf]

I´m playing 2 campaigns at the moment:

We did the first session of elemental evil with some encounters and they were pretty fun. A friend of mine decided to be a goliath barbarian and decided on a 15 to physical stats and 8 to all other stat approach, which if quite alright he even played himself roughly in that area and had quite a bit of fun(becoming so drunk that he was poisoned in one encounter and such).

The second has Ravenloft as a setting but isn´t going whole hog on the weird and monster thing and we as the most experienced characters in our village are leading our people(hopefully) to salvation. We had a new player join in and he decided to roll a fighter[BM](and he turned out to be William Wallace) with GWM and Heavy armor mastery.

Neither of the above players picked Polearm master, but as far as I can tell in both cases they would have doubled(or tripled) their damage with one feat. Neither of those players optimize much: one DM´s a lot and is pretty good at it, the other tries but hasn´t grasped it quite yet(literally his second dnd character).

Why aside from fluff reasons wouldn´t a strength based melee character take polearm master?

Also and this might be the reason why: Has anyone ever seen a magical polearm in dnd in a module or adventure, that is one not crafted by another player?

If you have it at lv. 4 or below. You do with a two handed weapon 2d6+4(11) and because you took a feat you have a STR of 16/17 so you go for 1d10+3+1d4+3 (14).
If you take the dual wielder feat you have an AC of one more and you do with a STR of 16/17 1d8+3+1d8+3 (15).
At higher levels it isn't that strong. If you're playing a character with two attacks it's maybe as strong as dual wielder (with both you use bonus action, but you still have more AC with dual wielder), and if you're a fighter and have three attacks you can better do 3d10+1d4+20 than 4d8+20, but you still have 1ac more with dual wielder. So I really don't understand why polearm master is that good. With more attacks (2) doing 4d6+10 (24) is close to 2d10+1d4+12 (28,5)

Did I read something wrong?

[Nod_Hero]

Also, is it an official Goliath PC race, or homebrew? If the former, where can I find it. I don't remember seeing it in the DMG or an unearthed arcana yet.

It's one of the four new races in the Elemental Evil Player’s Companion.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/elementalevil_playerscompanion

[djreynolds]

If you have it at lv. 4 or below. You do with a two handed weapon 2d6+4(11) and because you took a feat you have a STR of 16/17 so you go for 1d10+3+1d4+3 (14).
If you take the dual wielder feat you have an AC of one more and you do with a STR of 16/17 1d8+3+1d8+3 (15).
At higher levels it isn't that strong. If you're playing a character with two attacks it's maybe as strong as dual wielder (with both you use bonus action, but you still have more AC with dual wielder), and if you're a fighter and have three attacks you can better do 3d10+1d4+20 than 4d8+20, but you still have 1ac more with dual wielder. So I really don't understand why polearm master is that good. With more attacks (2) doing 4d6+10 (24) is close to 2d10+1d4+12 (28,5)

Did I read something wrong?

Perhaps you're right and we just haven't seen it played out. I have a champion and I've only rolled a crit once. It's like two weapon fighting with a double sword, probably just a good as a long sword and short sword dual wielder. It is just a butt stroke and 1d4. Perhaps it just sounds powerful. A dual wielder can get sentinel, and I would recommend that feat for any melee build.

[Submortimer]

It is stupidly good in three very specific instances: Totem Barbarians, anyone with the sentinel Feat, and Quarterstaff/Dueling/Shield combo.

- Sentinel give you the benefit of locking someone down, and keeping them there, while polearm master makes sure you can reach them (and gives you that extra attack)
- Quarterstaff/Dueling/Shield Certainly works, and is one of the few ways to get a bonus action attack with a one-handed weapon. It's cheesy, but not overly broken...just very good.
- Finally, barbarians...oh barbarians....Polearm master makes frenzy WORTHLESS. Sure, you could be swinging with a d12 three times, but you're pulling exhaustion every fight. Better to swing with a d10 twice, a d4 once, and add your rage damage, strength damage, and GWM damage to every strike. Plus, you're a totem Barbarian, so you still get those sweet Totem abilities.

Also...


Perhaps you're right and we just haven't seen it played out. I have a champion and I've only rolled a crit once. It's like two weapon fighting with a double sword, probably just a good as a long sword and short sword dual wielder. It is just a butt stroke and 1d4. Perhaps it just sounds powerful. A dual wielder can get sentinel, and I would recommend that feat for any melee build.

The reason PM is better than DW is that you add your strength bonus to the damage of the bonus action attack without needing an extra fighting style.

[Once a Fool]

The reason PM is better than DW is that you add your strength bonus to the damage of the bonus action attack without needing an extra fighting style.

And also, it can be used from the second rank, or across chasms, pits, or hindering or hazardous terrain.

And also, it allows you to attack with reach, back up safely, and get a reaction attack if the enemy then tries to engage you.

And also, it can be used with GWM. On every single attack.

[Kryx]

Polearm Master + GWM is the best DPR.

Polearm itself is behind GMW on DPR. I model this on the Barbarian page of my DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1254868251).

[djreynolds]

It is stupidly good in three very specific instances: Totem Barbarians, anyone with the sentinel Feat, and Quarterstaff/Dueling/Shield combo.

- Sentinel give you the benefit of locking someone down, and keeping them there, while polearm master makes sure you can reach them (and gives you that extra attack)
- Quarterstaff/Dueling/Shield Certainly works, and is one of the few ways to get a bonus action attack with a one-handed weapon. It's cheesy, but not overly broken...just very good.
- Finally, barbarians...oh barbarians....Polearm master makes frenzy WORTHLESS. Sure, you could be swinging with a d12 three times, but you're pulling exhaustion every fight. Better to swing with a d10 twice, a d4 once, and add your rage damage, strength damage, and GWM damage to every strike. Plus, you're a totem Barbarian, so you still get those sweet Totem abilities.

Also...



The reason PM is better than DW is that you add your strength bonus to the damage of the bonus action attack without needing an extra fighting style.

Big dumb question for you guys. Isn't using a quarterstaff the same as just dual-wielding it? Can't you just take a pole arm and really you're just dual wielding it. The pointy end gives bigger damage and the butt end gives off hand damage. Kind of like a double flail? And I'm unsure of quarterstaff with shield? I've read a lot of posts about it, I've read spear and shield. I just can't grasp that. Its cool and I let it go.

[Submortimer]

If and when I play it, I re-flavor it as spear and shield, since spear is (somehow) not eligible for PM while Quarterstaff is.

And yes, it's essentially dual-wielding, except that it's inherently better and requires fewer pre-requisites to be awesome.

[Giant2005]

Polearm Master is pretty amazing, especially on classes that get extra proc damage on their attacks. Although with that new Mystic class around and being powerful enough that it is virtually mandatory for all martial classes to take, Polearm Master is comparatively less useful (Due to the Mystic class offering far superior uses for the Bonus Action).

[HoarsHalberd]

Big dumb question for you guys. Isn't using a quarterstaff the same as just dual-wielding it? Can't you just take a pole arm and really you're just dual wielding it. The pointy end gives bigger damage and the butt end gives off hand damage. Kind of like a double flail? And I'm unsure of quarterstaff with shield? I've read a lot of posts about it, I've read spear and shield. I just can't grasp that. Its cool and I let it go.

No, because dual wielding requires a fighting style in order to do attribute damage with the bonus action attack.

Spear and shield is a lower damage option that has no real benefits to it in 5e. It was however a very common tactic in the real world, but favoured massed unit tactics.

Quarterstaff and shield is using technicalities to get the most DPR and AC. If you can get the duelling fighting style and polearm mastery you get more damage than any other weapon and shield build as you get d6+5+2 which is approximately equal to d10+5. You also get d4+5+2 which means that you'll do equal damage to a polearm wielder until third attack or the investment of a second feat. Whilst having a shield which grants you +2AC, meaning that a PM using paladin which only gets one feat is straight up better using quarter staff and shield than a halberd or glaive. And even a fighter with four attacks will be balancing 1.5 DPR before taking in chances of misses (if you hit on an 11 it becomes 0.75 DPR) vs 2 AC. Which is a fairly easy choice.

[djreynolds]

No, because dual wielding requires a fighting style in order to do attribute damage with the bonus action attack.

Spear and shield is a lower damage option that has no real benefits to it in 5e. It was however a very common tactic in the real world, but favoured massed unit tactics.

Quarterstaff and shield is using technicalities to get the most DPR and AC. If you can get the duelling fighting style and polearm mastery you get more damage than any other weapon and shield build as you get d6+5+2 which is approximately equal to d10+5. You also get d4+5+2 which means that you'll do equal damage to a polearm wielder until third attack or the investment of a second feat. Whilst having a shield which grants you +2AC, meaning that a PM using paladin which only gets one feat is straight up better using quarter staff and shield than a halberd or glaive. And even a fighter with four attacks will be balancing 1.5 DPR before taking in chances of misses (if you hit on an 11 it becomes 0.75 DPR) vs 2 AC. Which is a fairly easy choice.

Nice take. Thanks for the stats to. We haven't implemented feats yet. I'm unsure if disallowing quarterstaffs and shields is wrong just because I don't like it.

[PhantomRenegade]

What makes polearm master, and crossbow expert for that matter, so attractive is that not only are they the best option in terms of DPR, but they also work all the time.

Other feats that deal with martial combat styles and give you something to do with your bonus action (i might be missing some) would be GWM, Shield master.

GWM lets you use your bonus action to do one weapon attack, on the plus side you do it with the weapon's normal hit die, but its a conditional attack so its not gonna happen every turn.

Shield master is a incredily useful tactical tool, letting you shove as a bonus action but it only works on creatures larger or smaller, so its usefullness depends on what your DM likes to throw at you.

[WampDiesel]

Nice take. Thanks for the stats to. We haven't implemented feats yet. I'm unsure if disallowing quarterstaffs and shields is wrong just because I don't like it.

I am about to start DMing a campaign after having played in 3 separate 5e campaigns so far. I am house ruling a bunch of the feats and Polearm master is being changed as follows:

Works for all polearm type weapons (tridents spears pikes lucrene hammers etc.)
Must be wielding polearm in two hands.
Butt attack does not have the reach property (can only perform the 1d4 attack at 5 feet).

This seems to me the best way to balance out this feat. Opens up the available weapons while preventing qstaff cheese.

[Shining Wrath]

Not really.

All it does is gives you more damage, something everyone can do. Now at level 1 - 4 this is fantastic, sure, as you and your friends and enemies have low HP. But as you start to have more HP and enemies start to have more HP that one extra attack doesn't really stack up.

Combine it with GWM and all you get is more HP damage.

All it is letting you do is something you can already do, HP damage.

A Feat like Shield Master gives you new options. It allows you to shove with a bonus action. This can help Maneuver enemies or give yourself and allies advantage on attack rolls (which cancels out disadvantage).

Doing 6-9 more points of damage (1d4+Str 5) isn't as great at it seems (past level 4 ish). With GWM (16-19) you need a source of advantage, an ally/yourself cast bless, or wait till higher level to effectively use it.

Even with sentinel it really isn't that great as you only get 1 reaction per round. Hordes laugh at you as one gets stopped and the others rush the squishies.

I would much rather use my bonus actions for spells, TWF (TWF fighting style, I can stat boost or pick up new options with the Feat ), or Cunning action.

Dead is the best condition to impose on your enemies. If I have the chance to inflict Dead, all other options are suboptimal. Which is to say, there's a place in a party (note: party) for someone who consistently does a lot of damage.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I am about to start DMing a campaign after having played in 3 separate 5e campaigns so far. I am house ruling a bunch of the feats and Polearm master is being changed as follows:

Works for all polearm type weapons (tridents spears pikes lucrene hammers etc.)
Must be wielding polearm in two hands.
Butt attack does not have the reach property (can only perform the 1d4 attack at 5 feet).

This seems to me the best way to balance out this feat. Opens up the available weapons while preventing qstaff cheese.

How is that balanced?

The entire point of having a reach weapon is so you don't get within the enemy's threatened range. With your change the player will have to do that just to use it.

Polearm is only unbalanced at low levels (damage wise), you really don't need to change anything. Just say that you must be level 4 to take this feat and keep it as is.

Remember that D&D is a fantasy game and not a simulation game and polearm master works just fine as is. Quarterstaff in one hand and using polearm master brings some pretty awesome fighting fluff. Using the butt end of the polearm at reach does as well.

There is balancing something and then just putting restrictions on something that isn't needed.

Edit:

HP weapon damage is the slowest route to get to Dead. There are many other conditions which speed up OR invalidate the need to make something dead.

Murder hobo is not always the right answer.

[ZenBear]

Oath of Devotion Paladin at level 11+ with 20 STR/CHA uses Channel Divinity on a halberd gets +10 to hit plus proficiency on all attacks and deals 1d10+1d8+5 twice and 1d4+1d8+5 as a bonus action and can Smite on all 3 hits, then walk away because you attacked from 10ft. Plus, with GW Fighting Style they reroll all 1's and 2's on all damage dice, including Smite. 1d10+1d8+5+Smite on AoOs coming or going. Oh, also add on Elemental Weapon for an additional +1 to hit and 1d4+1 to damage on all attacks.

[Kryx]

Polearm is only unbalanced at low levels (damage wise)
It is significantly ahead at all tiers. See DPR of Classes in my sig.

Though I'm not convinced it's unbalanced.

[djreynolds]

I am about to start DMing a campaign after having played in 3 separate 5e campaigns so far. I am house ruling a bunch of the feats and Polearm master is being changed as follows:

Works for all polearm type weapons (tridents spears pikes lucrene hammers etc.)
Must be wielding polearm in two hands.
Butt attack does not have the reach property (can only perform the 1d4 attack at 5 feet).

This seems to me the best way to balance out this feat. Opens up the available weapons while preventing qstaff cheese.

I like that. At least because its how envision the pole arm being used.

**But I'm unsure if that's how the creators see it.** So it got me thinking, I'm on third shift anyhow.

The way I see it, is that your thrusting it, like a spear and then stepping in with a butt stroke. Check out every Civil War movie ever made.

But the spear or pike are originally not used in the pole arm master feat, so it got me thinking.

Yes you can use a halberd or glaive as a spear, the have both a spike and an axe blade, but why weren't the other thrusting weapons included in the feat but quarterstaff was?

Perhaps, and maybe one of the creators are viewing this, You're swinging the pole-arm down or side ways in chopping motion and then you're bringing it back to reposition the weapon for another chop but instead now you're are thrusting out with a simple jab with the butt end of the weapon and at that moment of impact the other end, the axe is close, off to the side, to your head or body. That's why it is only 1d4 plus what ever muscle you could put on the end of that jab.

So your right hand say is up on the middle of the shaft (stop laughing, no **** jokes) and the left in near the end, as you swing the axe you're using you're right arm and as you bring it back, to recharge the strike, you now slide the right hand back to the axe head and the left is now in the middle of the pole-arm and you spear or jab with butt end, you're not butt-stroking(stop giggling)

I don't think you're butt stroking the weapon and that is where I've been wrong. A butt stroke properly done would mean that I would step into the slam and cause a lot more than 1d4 of damage. I've always seen it as a stab and butt stroke. But its not or the designers would have included the spear or trident.

I think you're doing this technique. So now I see it.

But if you think you're gonna do that with a shield and quarterstaff, I may use my divine intervention to ask the heavens above to smite thee.

[Kryx]

So your right hand say is up on the middle of the shaft

now slide the right hand back

jab with butt end, you're not butt-stroking

butt stroking the weapon

A butt stroke properly done would mean that I would step into the slam

I've always seen it as a stab and butt stroke
I know you asked for no jokes, but your reply makes it nearly impossible.

[djreynolds]

I know you asked for no jokes, but your reply makes it nearly impossible.

I had to write it. It's like Lois and Peter on Family Guy

[Hawkstar]

The entire point of having a reach weapon is so you don't get within the enemy's threatened range. With your change the player will have to do that just to use it.
It makes the bonus action attack more situational, like GWM's bonus action attack. Great when you're at melee anyway (Due to 5e's simple OA rules and higher mobility), but not useful when engaging enemies from afar. The other benefits from the feat are still valuable, though.

[Kryx]

It makes the bonus action attack more situational, like GWM's bonus action attack.
The problem with this is if you compare straight GWM to straight Polearm Master the GWM is significantly better due to -5/+10. So reducing Polearm just makes it weaker in comparison to GWM (though most polearms can do both).

I had thought about making the butt end of a polearm be at 5ft as well before, but never followed through.

[Mechaviking]

Thanks for the inputs :D

As a sidenote I don´t see why great weapon master could not have been name weapon master and allowed you to add damage to a melee weapon, add a paragraph at the end that states: If the weapon you are using has the heavy quality add +10 to your damage instead of +x(probably 5 maybie 6 to 8).

[PoeticDwarf]

What makes polearm master, and crossbow expert for that matter, so attractive is that not only are they the best option in terms of DPR, but they also work all the time.

Other feats that deal with martial combat styles and give you something to do with your bonus action (i might be missing some) would be GWM, Shield master.

GWM lets you use your bonus action to do one weapon attack, on the plus side you do it with the weapon's normal hit die, but its a conditional attack so its not gonna happen every turn.

Shield master is a incredily useful tactical tool, letting you shove as a bonus action but it only works on creatures larger or smaller, so its usefullness depends on what your DM likes to throw at you.

And, you know, dual wielder, more AC and more/the same amount of damage with a fighting style.
With shillelagh it's another story (carrying a shield but doing two attacks with total 2d8+10).
That's without an extra attack (for cleric maybe).

[ThermalSlapShot]

It is significantly ahead at all tiers. See DPR of Classes in my sig.

Though I'm not convinced it's unbalanced.

DPR is overrated.

[HoarsHalberd]

DPR is overrated.

It's pretty much all a fighter or barbarian can add to a target of huge or larger.

[Kryx]

DPR is overrated.
It's a general estimate if power. That's it.

In this case it shows that GWM by itself is more powerful and to nerf polearm is unfair to polearm.

[djreynolds]

It's a general estimate if power. That's it.

In this case it shows that GWM by itself is more powerful and to nerd polearm is unfair to it.

Does the first part of GWM pertain to any melee weapon, the cleave?

I think for a smiting paladin who can lay out serious damage its great, GWM is.

But not many others can hit as hard as 13+ paladin. And now he can have GWM and polearm Master.

I'm only asking opinions, cause we're playing without feats. But starting up another game, with feats.

[Kryx]

Does the first part of GWM pertain to any melee weapon, the cleave?
No, the devs have confirmed that it works with any melee weapon via twitter.

[djreynolds]

No, the devs have confirmed that it works with any melee weapon via twitter.

You know I love playing a fighter, rogue or barbarian. But all this just makes you want to play wizard.

You guys are right , DPR is all the three martial classes have. That's why you play with fighters.

I hope battlemasters disarm and trip are that good

[coredump]

I am about to start DMing a campaign after having played in 3 separate 5e campaigns so far. I am house ruling a bunch of the feats and Polearm master is being changed as follows:

Works for all polearm type weapons (tridents spears pikes lucrene hammers etc.)
Must be wielding polearm in two hands.
Butt attack does not have the reach property (can only perform the 1d4 attack at 5 feet).

This seems to me the best way to balance out this feat. Opens up the available weapons while preventing qstaff cheese.

"Balance" is a trickier metric, but the changes make sense to me. Just because we are playing a medieval fantasy game, doesn't mean 'everything automatically makes sense'. You are right, it makes no sense to have reach with *both* ends of a polearm, and it makes even less sense to be able to do so with one hand. Heck, even just using a quarterstaff one handed is kind of a joke.

It does make other feats 'more powerful' in comparison, but that is a separate issue

[WampDiesel]

"Balance" is a trickier metric, but the changes make sense to me. Just because we are playing a medieval fantasy game, doesn't mean 'everything automatically makes sense'. You are right, it makes no sense to have reach with *both* ends of a polearm, and it makes even less sense to be able to do so with one hand. Heck, even just using a quarterstaff one handed is kind of a joke.

It does make other feats 'more powerful' in comparison, but that is a separate issue

So part of the reason I posted this is that I wanted to see if the playground felt that the 5' restriction is too much. This is the core issue I have. Polearms are meant to be used at a distance but you hold them in such a way that attacking with the haft of the weapon would force you to lose your reach advantage. If anything I will keep parts one and two and reflavor the the "buttstrike" as a quick jab using the backside of the blade or a poke using the end of the staff. Keeps the feat the same as far as power level without making a polearm master turn into a grip switching baton twirler.

[djreynolds]

So part of the reason I posted this is that I wanted to see if the playground felt that the 5' restriction is too much. This is the core issue I have. Polearms are meant to be used at a distance but you hold them in such a way that attacking with the haft of the weapon would force you to lose your reach advantage. If anything I will keep parts one and two and reflavor the the "buttstrike" as a quick jab using the backside of the blade or a poke using the end of the staff. Keeps the feat the same as far as power level without making a polearm master turn into a grip switching baton twirler.

You know I've been trying to find stuff on you tube with guys fighting with pole-arms, and there is a lot. The guys fighting with pole-arms are not swinging them like a huge great axe or stabbing them like a spear. Deadliest Warrior is a good resource to watch guys employing weapons. The halberd is just not balanced to be swung like an extra long axe, and the only time they're using the reach aspect of the weapon is when they are stabbing it like a spear. I think your homebrew restriction is perfect!!!

People say that this is fantasy, and it is. But Asimov said something, "If magic were a real thing, it would follow the laws of the universe." So I can understand people wanting realism, we understand its fantasy but if the wizard casts a fireball it cause fire damage not frost bite. If you use a staff in one arm, then it is a wooden sword or club and it should damage accordingly.

I'll give a high level monk the ability to use a staff with dexterity and do crazy maneuvers because I've seen them do it, Shaolin vs. Maori Warrior on deadliest warrior is good example of the capabilities of just what a master of a staff can do. But that staff though amazing didn't do as much damage as the Maori Taiaha though the staff was more versatile.

[SharkForce]

i dunno that i'd credit deadliest warrior with that much reliability.

i mean, for some of the stuff they do, sure... but some of the decision making processes in that show just... well, let's just say that the assumptions they make don't always sound very good.

or heck, i remember one episode where they were all "oh, let's have a straight up fight between a ninja and a spartan warrior". gee. i wonder who's gonna win. the guy that spent his entire life preparing for a straight up fight, or the guy who spent his entire life preparing to avoid straight up fights and only fights to escape from said straight up fights. hmm... gee, i wonder how that one might turn out.

[djreynolds]

i dunno that i'd credit deadliest warrior with that much reliability.

i mean, for some of the stuff they do, sure... but some of the decision making processes in that show just... well, let's just say that the assumptions they make don't always sound very good.

or heck, i remember one episode where they were all "oh, let's have a straight up fight between a ninja and a spartan warrior". gee. i wonder who's gonna win. the guy that spent his entire life preparing for a straight up fight, or the guy who spent his entire life preparing to avoid straight up fights and only fights to escape from said straight up fights. hmm... gee, i wonder how that one might turn out.

Very true, that fight was about as fair as the pirate vs. the knight. I'd like to have seen the ninja vs. the Apache warrior or the Spartan vs. the Knight.

But it does show case how a weapon should be employed. I'm just looking for a good rendition of someone wielding a polearm and how it resembles the polearm master feat.

Ninja vs. Spartan sleeping, Ninja wins.

I'd like to see additions for polearm and it could trip. Stuff like that. Flail disarms, etc.

[Kryx]

If anything I will keep parts one and two and reflavor the the "buttstrike" as a quick jab using the backside of the blade or a poke using the end of the staff. Keeps the feat the same as far as power level without making a polearm master turn into a grip switching baton twirler.
This is what I did. I just made the fluff fit the mechanics since the mechanics weren't as strong as I thought they were. (Still very strong, but not more than GWM).

[coredump]

So part of the reason I posted this is that I wanted to see if the playground felt that the 5' restriction is too much. This is the core issue I have. Polearms are meant to be used at a distance but you hold them in such a way that attacking with the haft of the weapon would force you to lose your reach advantage. If anything I will keep parts one and two and reflavor the the "buttstrike" as a quick jab using the backside of the blade or a poke using the end of the staff. Keeps the feat the same as far as power level without making a polearm master turn into a grip switching baton twirler.

I actually don't like it with spears etc. I think a butt strike with a chopping weapon makes sense, but one with a stabbing weapon does not. But I don't think it is crazybadwrong..... just doesn't sit well with me.

Perhaps: "If all attacks are directed at the same target, you may move 5' towards that target before taking the bonus attack"

Basically, gives them the option of giving up range for that extra attack, kind of mimics the 'stepping in' for the butt strike. I would playtest to see if that movement should/shouldn't trigger OAs.

[SharkForce]

I actually don't like it with spears etc. I think a butt strike with a chopping weapon makes sense, but one with a stabbing weapon does not. But I don't think it is crazybadwrong..... just doesn't sit well with me.

Perhaps: "If all attacks are directed at the same target, you may move 5' towards that target before taking the bonus attack"

Basically, gives them the option of giving up range for that extra attack, kind of mimics the 'stepping in' for the butt strike. I would playtest to see if that movement should/shouldn't trigger OAs.

there's no OA for moving closer to a target. only for leaving their entire threatened zone. this leads to silliness like you can walk 5 feet further past a polearm user before provoking than you could if they had a sword, but that's the rules.

for a spear, you could just assume that they're not reversing the weapon. they thrust, and then smack you with the side of the spear. in fact, just ignoring the flavour entirely and assuming that they are simply making a quick attack that doesn't have the full force behind it (and doesn't apply any cutting edges properly) probably makes the whole thing make more sense.

[Kryx]

there's no OA for moving closer to a target. only for leaving their entire threatened zone. this leads to silliness like you can walk 5 feet further past a polearm user before provoking than you could if they had a sword, but that's the rules.
It is in place of the old negatives:

You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
Now instead of not being able to attack adjacent you just don't provoke against adjacent. Makes perfect since to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know you asked for no jokes, but your reply makes it nearly impossible. This post just won the thread. Congratulations. :smallbiggrin:

[Kryx]

This post just won the thread. Congratulations. :smallbiggrin:
Finally, the credit I deserve! :cool:

[ThermalSlapShot]

It's a general estimate if power. That's it.

In this case it shows that GWM by itself is more powerful and to nerf polearm is unfair to polearm.

I mistyped.

Increasing DPR is overratted.

Classes already do enough damage, without feats, to keep up with the game and each other (or close enough) and focusing on increasing your DPR just doesn't really help all that much.

You don't really get anything out if it except *moar numbahs* and that is what has historically been bad about classes (3e, 4e, and 5e).

[cheetobenito]

I'm playing a Half-Elf Purple Dragon Knight Fighter with the Observant, Sentinel, and Polearm Master (my DM allowed me to take the Tunnel Fighter fighting style so I'm getting unlimited op attacks for my bonus action, rather than one op attack for my reaction), and OH MY GOD. It's ridiculous. I'm literally tanking better than the warforged Totem Warrior Barbarian, and that's saying something. Great Weapon Master will just be gravy at level 12. So yes. It is stupidly good, especially if you're going battlefield control.

[AttilatheYeon]

It really is the second most viable damage feat after GWM, as far as I'm aware. It's really strong, and if you're attempting to optimize, then it's a must.

Also, is it an official Goliath PC race, or homebrew? If the former, where can I find it. I don't remember seeing it in the DMG or an unearthed arcana yet.

Players Guide to Elemental Evil. Just do a google search.

[Willie the Duck]

Players Guide to Elemental Evil. Just do a google search.

This is a thread necro. You are responding to a three year old question.

[R.Shackleford]

It's good, but damage isn't exactly hard to come by.

Without polearm master, weapon classes who may use a polearm (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, etc...) will already be dealing enough damage to deal with the enemies. I think shield master gives you a much better bonus action as its something you can't already replicate as easy (prone a creature for advantage then get off all your attack(s) with your action on the same turn).

The reaction ability is nice. But it's just more damage. The great part is that it allows you to make use of your reaction more often, but I've found that enemies will take that hit and then just walk right by the attacker in order to get to the squisher targets. Maybe even dash at that point. Sentinel, is a much better feat to use with your reaction. Now Sentinel and Polearm Master does combo well... But by themselves Sentinel is a better feat as it gives you something you aren't already doing.

Polearm master is a nice feat if you want to do something you can already do well, or if you want to do something your class isn't really designed to do (cleric PAM). But if you want to expand your capabilities then PAM is meh.

I prefer versatility over hyper specialization.

I've taken pam a few times, but haven't touched it in a cpuple years as it doesn't add to my characters.

[Unoriginal]

This thread is three years old.

[krugaan]

Combine it with GWM and all you get is more HP damage.

All it is letting you do is something you can already do, HP damage.


Fatal damage has a quality all it's own.



I would much rather use my bonus actions for spells, TWF (TWF fighting style, I can stat boost or pick up new options with the Feat ), or Cunning action.

... what now?

[furby076]

This thread is three years old.

so? what????????

[GlenSmash!]

so? what????????

It means people reply to three year old posts by posters that haven't been here in years are very unlikely to be able to get replies from them.

But if they want to continue such an exercise in futility that's up to them.

(also it's against the forum rules.)

[R.Shackleford]

It means people reply to three year old posts by posters that haven't been here in years are very unlikely to be able to get replies from them.

But if they want to continue such an exercise in futility that's up to them.

(also it's against the forum rules.)

It seems like old threads should be auto-locked (kinda like reddit) if no one has posted in a while.

From time to time people reply to a thread because a new person to the forums necro-ed it. Like, I didn't realize that this tgread was necro-ed by someone until someone else brought it up...

Edit: and even then my response took a while to make and didn't notice someone already said it was necro-ed lol.

[beargryllz]

It's the best feat in the game by a large margin

[KorvinStarmast]

It's the best feat in the game by a large margin For a martial character, perhaps.

Lucky is good across the whole spectrum of PCs.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

For the life of me, I don't know why everyone thinks PAM is just heads and shoulders above other feats. It's just not. It's completely build/character/party dependent. I played a BM Ranger in a sort of tower defense campaign with rapid leveling every session. I outclassed everyone in most of the fights, and I can easily say that PAM and GWM wouldn't have made up for the difference.

Feats in and of themselves don't make your character that much more effective. You have to know how to use them and you have to cooperate with your party to get yourself into situations where they're useful. More than anything, feats are situational. Every feat except maybe Lucky and one or two more are tailored for specific playstyles, so unless you want to make the case that wielding a polearm is always better than ranged combat or dual wielding or sword and shield (it's not always better in case you aren't sure), then I really don't see why people make the argument that PAM is so vastly superior to other feats.

[Willie the Duck]

For the life of me, I don't know why everyone thinks PAM is just heads and shoulders above other feats. It's just not. It's completely build/character/party dependent.

Well, of course it is character dependent. The primary benefit is filling up your action economy (having uses for your bonus and reaction actions). If you were already getting use out of those, then it is going to be less effective.


Feats in and of themselves don't make your character that much more effective. You have to know how to use them and you have to cooperate with your party to get yourself into situations where they're useful.

That's true of everything though.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Well, of course it is character dependent. The primary benefit is filling up your action economy (having uses for your bonus and reaction actions). If you were already getting use out of those, then it is going to be less effective.



That's true of everything though.

Yeah, but getting a bonus action isn't always the "best" option for a character even. What if the party needs somebody with a high AC to tank? Would you rather have PAM and get to use your bonus action, or would you rather have a shield and defensive fighting style or duelist without the ability to use bonus action?

The only time PAM is good is if you're actually using a pole-arm, and that's such a small fraction of PCs that I just don't get why people make a big deal about it. And if you are going to use a pole-arm then you should obviously consider taking PAM, just like GWM or DW or WM. But if you only got to take one feat, you still might opt to go for something like Alert, Lucky, Linguist, Skilled, or any other number of options.

That's all I'm saying. I think feats are really well balanced because they're all so specific. Now, if a feat was so good that it made players largely tend towards one build over other similar builds then there could be a potential case for an OP feat, but I don't think there's much evidence of that happening.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, but getting a bonus action isn't always the "best" option for a character even. What if the party needs somebody with a high AC to tank? Would you rather have PAM and get to use your bonus action, or would you rather have a shield and defensive fighting style or duelist without the ability to use bonus action?

There's no one character build which solves every problem. That's exceedingly deliberate by the designers. PAM does what PAM does well (deal out damage, while also having a measure of battlefield control simply by measure of having both reach and an easier reaction-attack than standard OA rules). High AC... actually has some trouble by itself (depending on DM playstyle, 5e does not have very 'sticky' tanks unless you add Sentinel to the mix). The critique that PAM doesn't do everything is kind of a strange critique because, well, nothing does.


The only time PAM is good is if you're actually using a pole-arm, and that's such a small fraction of PCs that I just don't get why people make a big deal about it. And if you are going to use a pole-arm then you should obviously consider taking PAM, just like GWM or DW or WM. But if you only got to take one feat, you still might opt to go for something like Alert, Lucky, Linguist, Skilled, or any other number of options.

No one is going to agree on how common polearm PCs are. It's going to depend on how much DMs morph magic weapon distribution based upon what builds their players make, and there's no agreement on that (last time we went there turned into yet another fight).


That's all I'm saying. I think feats are really well balanced because they're all so specific. Now, if a feat was so good that it made players largely tend towards one build over other similar builds then there could be a potential case for an OP feat, but I don't think there's much evidence of that happening.

I'm genuinely surprised that someone's experience isn't that a whole bunch of people started making polearm builds this edition, specifically because it suddenly became a good build option*. If you haven't experienced this situation, then clearly your perspective is going to be different.
*Or conversely, my own situation, where no one uses polearms, because they don't want to be seen using PAM because it has a negative connotation as 'cheeze.'

[sithlordnergal]

Yeah, but getting a bonus action isn't always the "best" option for a character even. What if the party needs somebody with a high AC to tank? Would you rather have PAM and get to use your bonus action, or would you rather have a shield and defensive fighting style or duelist without the ability to use bonus action?

I mean...to be fair, if you wanna tank while using PAM just grab a quarterstaff and Shillelagh. Your reach remains the same as a longsword, your damage remains the same as a longsword, there are some magic staffs out there that are better then some magic swords.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

There's no one character build which solves every problem. That's exceedingly deliberate by the designers. PAM does what PAM does well (deal out damage, while also having a measure of battlefield control simply by measure of having both reach and an easier reaction-attack than standard OA rules). High AC... actually has some trouble by itself (depending on DM playstyle, 5e does not have very 'sticky' tanks unless you add Sentinel to the mix). The critique that PAM doesn't do everything is kind of a strange critique because, well, nothing does.
[/I][/SIZE]

That's my point. I'm not saying you think this, but I've heard so many people on this forum and otherwise say, "Ermahgerd, PAM and GWM are so broken. Help me stop my players from breaking teh game plz. I cannot handle this slight power advantage for their build. I would rather my fighters get access to Wizard spells or something that definitely can't break the game.

[Specter]

- Finally, barbarians...oh barbarians....Polearm master makes frenzy WORTHLESS. Sure, you could be swinging with a d12 three times, but you're pulling exhaustion every fight. Better to swing with a d10 twice, a d4 once, and add your rage damage, strength damage, and GWM damage to every strike. Plus, you're a totem Barbarian, so you still get those sweet Totem abilities.

This is a fallacy. If you are using a feat to get a bonus action attack that deals 1d4, the Berserker is spending his feat on something else. You got Polearm Master and he got Great Weapon Master. By the time you get Great Weapon Master, he will have Resilient (WIS) or Tough or whatever. If you think it's a good opportunity cost then fine, but it doesn't make anything 'worthless'.

Not to mention that all Totem level 6 abilities are far from Mindless Rage.

[Willie the Duck]

That's my point. I'm not saying you think this, but I've heard so many people on this forum and otherwise say, "Ermahgerd, PAM and GWM are so broken. Help me stop my players from breaking teh game plz. I cannot handle this slight power advantage for their build. I would rather my fighters get access to Wizard spells or something that definitely can't break the game.

You will forgive me for thinking this is a goalpost I wasn't kicking for. As recently as your last post, you were discussing PAM in comparison to 'GWM or DW or WM,' so I was prepared to discuss other martial options. I'm not sure that spellcasters, and how they fit into this, isn't a credible reason why PAM and GWM are a problem. By being too good at attriting enemies Hit Points, they incentivize DMs to not put up problems which can be solved by merely doing damage, making spellcasters all the more necessary to a party's success. But in the end I just don't care. I thoroughly drained my attention span for spellcaster-vs.-martial debates long before 5e was in the planning stages. Regardless, even if wizards can "Ermahgerd, break teh game" ten times better than a fighter, the state of being that every fighter feels compelled to pick up PAM and GWM (or SS and CE), rather than any other specific combat option, is still an unfortunate state of events.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

You will forgive me for thinking this is a goalpost I wasn't kicking for. As recently as your last post, you were discussing PAM in comparison to 'GWM or DW or WM,' so I was prepared to discuss other martial options. I'm not sure that spellcasters, and how they fit into this, isn't a credible reason why PAM and GWM are a problem. By being too good at attriting enemies Hit Points, they incentivize DMs to not put up problems which can be solved by merely doing damage, making spellcasters all the more necessary to a party's success. But in the end I just don't care. I thoroughly drained my attention span for spellcaster-vs.-martial debates long before 5e was in the planning stages. Regardless, even if wizards can "Ermahgerd, break teh game" ten times better than a fighter, the state of being that every fighter feels compelled to pick up PAM and GWM (or SS and CE), rather than any other specific combat option, is still an unfortunate state of events.

That was just a random example. We can talk martial combat only. I disagree that every fighter feels compelled to pick up PAM and/or GWM. In fact, I've never had someone use PAM in any of my games. And GWM has been used maybe once that I recall. As someone stated before, DPR is over-rated. But even if it's the end-all be-all, there are plenty of ways to get the same or similar DPR with other fighting styles and feats even within the classes of fighter and barbarian. For instance, focusing on increasing hit chance will boost your DPR even though you aren't rolling more/higher dice. I just think PAM and GWM are very popular, and so a lot of people think it's the only thing good or optimized, which is just not the case. People just need to be creative with optimization instead of saying, I run at the thing and hit the thing big. Do hard damages. It sounds like you're on board with that, so I submit to you that these two feats are not over-tuned compared to other builds with different feats, or no feats for that matter.

[Asmotherion]

The short answear would be: It's obviously good. Some other things in 5e are more subtly good but are equally good.

The thing with PAM that makes it so obviously good is that it doesn't hide behind any pretext of justification of the kind "I'm doing x but also give you y virtually irrelevant bonus that you may work around to find a way to use". It just oppenly and honestly gives you what you're looking for, what few feats do, and why people choose them (Magic Initiate for example, or Sharpshooter) over others that try to be more "appologetic" by including occasional mechanics that may trigger once in a wile and may need specific builds or Campain Types to be useful (for example Keen Mind, Mage Slayer, Inspiring Leader).

[MaxWilson]

Not really.

All it does is gives you more damage, something everyone can do. Now at level 1 - 4 this is fantastic, sure, as you and your friends and enemies have low HP. But as you start to have more HP and enemies start to have more HP that one extra attack doesn't really stack up.

Combine it with GWM and all you get is more HP damage.

All it is letting you do is something you can already do, HP damage.

A Feat like Shield Master gives you new options. It allows you to shove with a bonus action. This can help Maneuver enemies or give yourself and allies advantage on attack rolls (which cancels out disadvantage).

Do you realize that PAM and Shield Master are basically equivalent when it gives to shoving? You spend your action and bonus action to get a shove prone and two(ish) attacks, at advantage. Then you retreat far enough that they can't attack you back next turn, and you take one opportunity attack at disadvantage from the prone target but then zero attacks instead of a full Multiattack on the enemy's turn. (And if you're PAM you'll also get a reaction attack when they do close with you.)

The biggest difference between them is that Shield Master is compatible with maxing AC and PAM is compatible with GWM for maxing damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

Regardless, even if wizards can "Ermahgerd, break teh game" ten times better than a fighter, the state of being that every fighter feels compelled to pick up PAM and GWM (or SS and CE), rather than any other specific combat option, is still an unfortunate state of events. But every fighter isn't compelled to do that. My champion took shield master and medium armor master. He's level 14. :smallcool:

[MaxWilson]

But every fighter isn't compelled to do that. My champion took shield master and medium armor master. He's level 14. :smallcool:

Other excellent fightery options include Prodigy (Athletics), Defensive Duelist, Mobile, Lucky, Heavy Armor Master, and Healer. (Skulker can be excellent too, in a Gloomstalker kind of way, but requires Rogue levels or Goblin blood to fully exploit.)

Under my AD&D-flavored spellcasting and initiative rules, Mage Slayer is also quite good (you can disrupt spells while they are still being cast, even if they are instantaneous effects like Fireball, because the casting is not instantaneous).

To whatever extent damage-increasing feats feel "mandatory", it is probably a statement about the extent to which you value damage over survivability or out-of-combat utility. It is true that SS, PAM, GWM, and CE are the only strong damage-increasing feats.

[KorvinStarmast]

Other excellent fightery options include Prodigy (Athletics), Defensive Duelist, Mobile, Lucky, Heavy Armor Master, and Healer. (Skulker can be excellent too, in a Gloomstalker kind of way, but requires Rogue levels or Goblin blood to fully exploit.)

To whatever extent damage-increasing feats feel "mandatory", it is probably a statement about the extent to which you value damage over survivability or out-of-combat utility. It is true that SS, PAM, GWM, and CE are the only strong damage-increasing feats. I noticed in our tier two games that monster to-hit also gets a benefit from the bounded accuracy model: their higher strength, increasing proficiency, and the fact that there are so often more of them, and that auto crit on 20, can get to be a serious problem for a non-shield wearing fighter.
This is one of the down sides of PAM. (This experience informed my champion's build). Another issue is initiative: who goes first?

The one magical item that I'd want for any front melee fighters is the cloak of displacemet. Disadvantage on some attacks against you, which means about 1/400 rather than 1/20 chance to get whacked for a crit. While "the best defense is a good offense" isn't a bad general approach, the bag of HP mode of monster creation and how the tyranny of small numbers influences a given combat can skew results.

[guachi]

I wouldn't call PAM "stupidly good" but it has made polearms something fun to use. Except that it should include spears. Why it doesn't I don't know.

[sambojin]

It should include spears. But yes, it is stupidly good.

Have a shield. +2AC. Have a stick. That gives you a bonus action attack. You can hit things with that stick when they move within 5' of you (not out of your reach, into it).

It's up there in the top 9 feats.

Magical Initiate (wizard find familiar/whatever/whatever or druid goodberry/guidance/shillelagh)
Alertness (going first is good for anyone)
Polearm Master (have a stick, see above)
Great Weapon Master (moar damage is good)
Sharpshooter (moar ranged damage is good)
Crossbow Expert (not caring about ranged/melee is good)
Resilient: Constitution (concentration saves and not sucking on Con saves)
Warcaster (can trip your cantrips. And always on advantage is nice whilst thinking)
Lucky (because always on advantage for anything is nice)

Everything else pales in comparison to these, depending on your build. You will want 1-3 of these for an optimized character. Mobility and Sentinel get an honourable mention, but meh. You only really need of Res:Con or Warcaster, but you'll want one of them probably.

Going melee? PAM. Not quite, but almost, every time. Get from level 1-12 without a hassle. You scaled properly.

[GlenSmash!]

It should include spears. But yes, it is stupidly good.

Have a shield. +2AC. Have a stick. That gives you a bonus action attack. You can hit things with that stick when they move within 5' of you (not out of your reach, into it).

It's up there in the top 9 feats.

Magical Initiate (wizard find familiar/whatever/whatever or druid goodberry/guidance/shillelagh)
Alertness (going first is good for anyone)
Polearm Master (have a stick, see above)
Great Weapon Master (moar damage is good)
Sharpshooter (moar ranged damage is good)
Crossbow Expert (not caring about ranged/melee is good)
Resilient: Constitution (concentration saves and not sucking on Con saves)
Warcaster (can trip your cantrips. And always on advantage is nice whilst thinking)
Lucky (because always on advantage for anything is nice)

Everything else pales in comparison to these, depending on your build. You will want 1-3 of these for an optimized character. Mobility and Sentinel get an honourable mention, but meh. You only really need of Res:Con or Warcaster, but you'll want one of them probably.

Going melee? PAM. Not quite, but almost, every time. Get from level 1-12 without a hassle. You scaled properly.

What's the point of having PAM when a Holy Avenger or Hammer of Thunderbolts shows up. Or flametongue or Giant Slayer.

I mean its a good feat, but I wouldn't even consider it an almost take everytime as melee unless I was in a low magic item campaign.

[Willie the Duck]

But every fighter isn't compelled to do that. My champion took shield master and medium armor master. He's level 14. :smallcool:

Yeah, I know. Honestly, I was just going off the statement, "It's completely build/character/party dependent," because, well duh, everything is going to vary in effectiveness base on the rest of he build. PAM in particular since its primary value is in routinely filling out bonus and reaction actions. If you have nothing else to do with them, it is most effective. If you have lots of things to do with them, it is at best a nice backup.

All of the PAM+Sentinel+GWM and SS+CE feats, in addition to being mostly good in games where the DM morphs magic weapon frequency to match up with party weapon preferences (a case that apparently occurs in AL, and others have suggested they've seen, but I have never seen in the wild--although I guess I have seen magic item marts in 5e, so I guess that counts). Even in that specific case, PAM is mostly 'too good' when paired with GWM, and the pc has a way to get regular advantage on attacks (through their own build, or party composition).

I actually have a champion with MAM as well. And Inspiring Leader and Ritual Caster (wizard). But I'd never call him optimized (and I kind of consider that a good thing). :-)

[KorvinStarmast]

I actually have a champion with MAM as well. And Inspiring Leader and Ritual Caster (wizard). But I'd never call him optimized (and I kind of consider that a good thing). :-)Inspiring leader is an underappreciated feat, IMO. MAM allows me to not always be ruining our sneakier party efforts to surprise an enemy.

[Millface]

I'm generally known as an optimizer and I've never been able to bring myself to take PAM.

I do play point buy, though. And we have all the books.

Elven Accuracy, ASIs, and situational feats are just better, IMO. You want to ASI your attack stat to 20, that's 2 if you don't take an appropriate half feat and start with point buy. If you don't multiclass that ends at 8, if you do it could be 10 or 11. If you're gish, you want warcaster, which is a 3rd ASI.

If you roll your stats and get lucky, sure, PAM and GWM are good together, but... realistically you only have room for 1 feat pre-tenth level in point buy, two if you're V human, but then... you can't start at a 17 in your attack stat and take the wonderful elven accuracy to get trivantage and 18. You just have to take an ASI.

Long story short, in point buy, PAM is largely useless.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm generally known as an optimizer and I've never been able to bring myself to take PAM.

I do play point buy, though. And we have all the books.

Elven Accuracy, ASIs, and situational feats are just better, IMO. You want to ASI your attack stat to 20, that's 2 if you don't take an appropriate half feat and start with point buy. If you don't multiclass that ends at 8, if you do it could be 10 or 11. If you're gish, you want warcaster, which is a 3rd ASI.

If you roll your stats and get lucky, sure, PAM and GWM are good together, but... realistically you only have room for 1 feat pre-tenth level in point buy, two if you're V human, but then... you can't start at a 17 in your attack stat and take the wonderful elven accuracy to get trivantage and 18. You just have to take an ASI.

Long story short, in point buy, PAM is largely useless.

If using strength with that GWM or PAM (so non-hexblade) Elven Accuracy is off the table anyway.

[Merudo]

IMO the big disadvantage with PAM is that it commits you to a specific weapon type.

Truth is there are little to no magical polearms in 5e. The are no named Halbert or Glaive beyond the generic +1/+2/+3 stuff. Quarterstaves on the other hand are plentiful, but most of the good ones can only be attuned to spellcasters.

So PAM is awesome until the party finds that cool Flametongue/Frost Brand/Dwarven Thrower/etc. and you realize how you'll never get to use a weapon like that.

It's even worse if you play published adventures strictly, as you might not even be able to obtain a single magical Halbert or Glaive.


you can't start at a 17 in your attack stat and take the wonderful elven accuracy to get trivantage and 18. You just have to take an ASI.


Could you elaborate why you think elven accuracy is so valuable?

There are not that many ways to reliably secure advantage on a dex build. Even Gloomstalker/Vengeance Paladin/Samurai can only do it some of the time. Unless you are in a party that can easily grant advantage (Wolf Barbarian, Faerie Fire caster, etc) I would definitely get another feat instead...

[Corran]

I'm generally known as an optimizer and I've never been able to bring myself to take PAM.

I do play point buy, though. And we have all the books.

Elven Accuracy, ASIs, and situational feats are just better, IMO. You want to ASI your attack stat to 20, that's 2 if you don't take an appropriate half feat and start with point buy. If you don't multiclass that ends at 8, if you do it could be 10 or 11. If you're gish, you want warcaster, which is a 3rd ASI.

If you roll your stats and get lucky, sure, PAM and GWM are good together, but... realistically you only have room for 1 feat pre-tenth level in point buy, two if you're V human, but then... you can't start at a 17 in your attack stat and take the wonderful elven accuracy to get trivantage and 18. You just have to take an ASI.

Long story short, in point buy, PAM is largely useless.
I am pretty sure there are exceptions to what I am about to say, but I think that in most cases, PAM is better than a +2 STR for a GWM build.

[Willie the Duck]

IMO the big disadvantage with PAM is that it commits you to a specific weapon type.
Truth is there are little to no magical polearms in 5e. The are no named Halbert or Glaive beyond the generic +1/+2/+3 stuff. Quarterstaves on the other hand are plentiful, but most of the good ones can only be attuned to spellcasters.
So PAM is awesome until the party finds that cool Flametongue/Frost Brand/Dwarven Thrower/etc. and you realize how you'll never get to use a weapon like that.
It's even worse if you play published adventures strictly, as you might not even be able to obtain a single magical Halbert or Glaive.

I definitely hew to that idea, and I think that the designers thought to too. In general, I like my martials to be Str- and Dex- based characters with the Defensive fighting style specifically because it allows them to be good with whatever magic weapon that comes the party's way. Once a DM indicates that the treasure will be distributed with an eye towards what the party wants, however, it's hard to treat that as an optimal position(whether that's important being an outside question).


Could you elaborate why you think elven accuracy is so valuable?

There are not that many ways to reliably secure advantage on a dex build. Even Gloomstalker/Vengeance Paladin/Samurai can only do it some of the time. Unless you are in a party that can easily grant advantage (Wolf Barbarian, Faerie Fire caster, etc) I would definitely get another feat instead...

I believe the #1 advantage for elven accuracy is that an elven Dex-based character who put point-buy 15 in their initial stat, then gets +2 for their race, can end up with an 18 in that stat at 4th level, along with a nice side-ability that you'll definitely find a use for (even if you have no natural internal road to advantage, as you said, all it takes is a Wolf-totem Barbarian or a caster with Faerie Fire in the party...). Add to that the fact that you can do the same thing with the half-elf Cha-based character you play next...

In other words, it isn't a great feat, merely a 'no-brainer' half-feat (not particularly build specific, easy to use. Kind of like how the Lucky feat isn't the best feat in the game, but it helps pretty much any build if you have an open ASI).

[MaxWilson]

Could you elaborate why you think elven accuracy is so valuable?

There are not that many ways to reliably secure advantage on a dex build. Even Gloomstalker/Vengeance Paladin/Samurai can only do it some of the time. Unless you are in a party that can easily grant advantage (Wolf Barbarian, Faerie Fire caster, etc) I would definitely get another feat instead...

Familiars, shoving prone, and (for melee attacks) Mounted Combatant come to mind.

E.g. you could do Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Prodigy (Athletics) and Elven Accuracy for Dex 18-20 by Fighter 12. Shove somebody prone with Athletics +10ish, then fire three attacks into them at trivantage for 40-50 points of damage, and optionally Action Surge another three attacks for a total of 80-100 damage.

If you want to do this at level 8 you need someone else to do Athletics work, but teamwork is a good thing.

Without Elven Accuracy your damage in this situation will go down a bit to probably the 35-45 range.

[Pex]

IMO the big disadvantage with PAM is that it commits you to a specific weapon type.

Truth is there are little to no magical polearms in 5e. The are no named Halbert or Glaive beyond the generic +1/+2/+3 stuff. Quarterstaves on the other hand are plentiful, but most of the good ones can only be attuned to spellcasters.

So PAM is awesome until the party finds that cool Flametongue/Frost Brand/Dwarven Thrower/etc. and you realize how you'll never get to use a weapon like that.

It's even worse if you play published adventures strictly, as you might not even be able to obtain a single magical Halbert or Glaive.



Technically true but not universal. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. When the DM is ready to hand out magic weapons to the party, if a PC has been using a glaive or halberd since the game started there's no reason for a DM forever to deny a magical one even beyond a mere +#. It may or may not be based on the iconics of holy avenger/frost brand/sun blade, but it could still be something nice.

The point is the existence or not of magical pole arms in published works is not a strong argument on the strength or weakness of Pole Arm Mastery feat.

[MaxWilson]

Technically true but not universal. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. When the DM is ready to hand out magic weapons to the party, if a PC has been using a glaive or halberd since the game started there's no reason for a DM forever to deny a magical one even beyond a mere +#.

Some of us use random tables for loot generation, and expect PCs to make choices based on the nature of the world instead of the world making choices based on the nature of the PCs. Getting more nice magical weapons is a perk for simple Strength-based fighter. If you decide to be a Dex-based Rapier specialist or Polearm Master, you are either gambling on getting lucky or you have a plan for coming up with your own intrinsic magical weapons via Magic Weapon or something.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

I'm playing a Half-Elf Purple Dragon Knight Fighter with the Observant, Sentinel, and Polearm Master (my DM allowed me to take the Tunnel Fighter fighting style so I'm getting unlimited op attacks for my bonus action, rather than one op attack for my reaction), and OH MY GOD. It's ridiculous. I'm literally tanking better than the warforged Totem Warrior Barbarian, and that's saying something. Great Weapon Master will just be gravy at level 12. So yes. It is stupidly good, especially if you're going battlefield control.

I really like the idea of the tunnel fighter, but as it was in the UA was to powerful. I mean no one can make unlimited attack in 6 seconds(1 round). Which is probably why it did come out in XGTE.

To keep the idea but make it more balanced you could make I based off of Extra Attack.
Tunnel Fighter: Instead of one reaction, you now have a number of reactions equal to how many attacks you make with the attack action.

Or as a feat. It's better for a Fighter, but still usable by other melee builds.
Combat Reflexes
Prerequisite - Extra Attack class feature
Instead of one reaction, you now have a number of reactions equal to how many attacks you make with the attack action.

[Pex]

I really like the idea of the tunnel fighter, but as it was in the UA was to powerful. I mean no one can make unlimited attack in 6 seconds(1 round). Which is probably why it did come out in XGTE.

To keep the idea but make it more balanced you could make I based off of Extra Attack.
Tunnel Fighter: Instead of one reaction, you now have a number of reactions equal to how many attacks you make with the attack action.

Or as a feat. It's better for a Fighter, but still usable by other melee builds.
Combat Reflexes
Prerequisite - Extra Attack class feature
Instead of one reaction, you now have a number of reactions equal to how many attacks you make with the attack action.

You should change "make" to "have" unless you meant it on purpose that you may only use Combat Reflexes when you specifically take the Attack Action as opposed to having the extra reactions all the time by having the feat even when you take other actions that are not the Attack Action.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

You should change "make" to "have" unless you meant it on purpose that you may only use Combat Reflexes when you specifically take the Attack Action as opposed to having the extra reactions all the time by having the feat even when you take other actions that are not the Attack Action.

Ah good catch, especially sense wording is so important in 5e. I would still use "make" for two reasons.
First because it would only be used with the the attack action as your focus is on attacks that turn.
Second because it will interact with things like Haste.

[Merudo]

Familiars, shoving prone, and (for melee attacks) Mounted Combatant come to mind.

E.g. you could do Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Prodigy (Athletics) and Elven Accuracy for Dex 18-20 by Fighter 12. Shove somebody prone with Athletics +10ish, then fire three attacks into them at trivantage for 40-50 points of damage, and optionally Action Surge another three attacks for a total of 80-100 damage.

If you want to do this at level 8 you need someone else to do Athletics work, but teamwork is a good thing.

Without Elven Accuracy your damage in this situation will go down a bit to probably the 35-45 range.

Thank you for your advice. Elven Accuracy does make a nice feat to get at level 12+ for a fighter. I'm less convinced of its value for other classes though, as they tend to be more starved for feats.

The main problem I see is that Elven Accuracy is typically not a priority for most ranged characters: Crossbow Expert & Sharpshooters are so amazing, plus you typically need an extra feat to secure advantage. So you often get Elven Accuracy very late - meaning you spend 2 points to start at 17 dex instead of 16 with no advantage until high levels. The alternative is to spend the 2 points elsewhere, and get potentially higher stats for most of your adventurer's career.

I'm aware you play higher level characters than most so that might not be a problem for you, but for many others, Elven Accuracy will only kick it at the very end of a campaign, if at all.

I'll add that my original message was in response to Millface suggesting that Elven Accuracy should be taken instead of PAM, which I find even harder to justify mechanically.


Technically true but not universal. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. When the DM is ready to hand out magic weapons to the party, if a PC has been using a glaive or halberd since the game started there's no reason for a DM forever to deny a magical one even beyond a mere +#. It may or may not be based on the iconics of holy avenger/frost brand/sun blade, but it could still be something nice.

The point is the existence or not of magical pole arms in published works is not a strong argument on the strength or weakness of Pole Arm Mastery feat.

In my experience most DMs either stick to official published content, or use the "Sane Magical Item Prices" guide on this site. Neither has cool magical Halberts or Glaives to offer.

Frankly, I don't think it's fair to expect the DM to create homebrew content just to ensure your already above average PAM + Sentinel build dominates in all circumstances.

It's well known that polearm users tends to be min-maxers. DMs typically tweak the rules to bring the unoptimized PCs up to par with the other players (i.e. Ranger/Sorcerer tweaks); they often are reluctant to change the rules just so the munchkins become even stronger.

[Pex]

Ah good catch, especially sense wording is so important in 5e. I would still use "make" for two reasons.
First because it would only be used with the the attack action as your focus is on attacks that turn.
Second because it will interact with things like Haste.

You should also specify that the extra reactions may only be used for opportunity attacks since other class features can use reactions. You may also need to specify that a character may only use one reaction effect per reaction so he can't make two opportunity attacks nor use a class or feat feature and make an opportunity attack on the same opportunity attack.

[Merudo]

I'm generally known as an optimizer and I've never been able to bring myself to take PAM.

I do play point buy, though. And we have all the books.

Elven Accuracy, ASIs, and situational feats are just better, IMO. You want to ASI your attack stat to 20, that's 2 if you don't take an appropriate half feat and start with point buy. If you don't multiclass that ends at 8, if you do it could be 10 or 11. If you're gish, you want warcaster, which is a 3rd ASI.

If you roll your stats and get lucky, sure, PAM and GWM are good together, but... realistically you only have room for 1 feat pre-tenth level in point buy, two if you're V human, but then... you can't start at a 17 in your attack stat and take the wonderful elven accuracy to get trivantage and 18. You just have to take an ASI.

Long story short, in point buy, PAM is largely useless.

Since Elven Accuracy doesn't work with strength weapons, I assume you are comparing a PAM user to a duel wielder with two scimitars or shortswords?

Duel wielding + EA does have the potential to do more damaging than PAM. It's in part because of fighting styles: TWF typically adds +3/+4 to the bonus action attack, while GWF is quite inefficient with polearms, adding .8 damage on average to each main attack, and .5 to the bonus attack. At level 5 that's 2.1 extra damage total, a bit more than half what TWF would give.

When I computed the numbers, I found that at level 5 TWF + EA is roughly equivalent to PAM + GWF while attacking without advantage. With advantage, TWF + EA is better, especially against creatures with high AC. However, PAM has the advantage of providing an excellent reaction attack, which can offset this. Having PAM trigger a single time during a combat was often all that was needed to make it the superior option.

So it's really a question of how often you have advantage against high AC creatures VS how often you expect the reaction attack of PAM to trigger.

[R.Shackleford]

Do you realize that PAM and Shield Master are basically equivalent when it gives to shoving? You spend your action and bonus action to get a shove prone and two(ish) attacks, at advantage. Then you retreat far enough that they can't attack you back next turn, and you take one opportunity attack at disadvantage from the prone target but then zero attacks instead of a full Multiattack on the enemy's turn. (And if you're PAM you'll also get a reaction attack when they do close with you.)

The biggest difference between them is that Shield Master is compatible with maxing AC and PAM is compatible with GWM for maxing damage.

No, PAM doesn't let you shove with a bonus action. It specifically gives you a melee attack that deals 1d4 base damage. It doesn't let you switch what type of attack it is.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/13/6052/

Mike said yes, but the official ruling is No via JC.


Edit: When you take the attack action, you can replace the attack with a special melee attack but when you get a bonus action attack, you aren't taking the attack action with said attack and thus can't switch it out.

5e could be so much simpler if they made it flexible.

[Ruebin Rybnik]

You should also specify that the extra reactions may only be used for opportunity attacks since other class features can use reactions. You may also need to specify that a character may only use one reaction effect per reaction so he can't make two opportunity attacks nor use a class or feat feature and make an opportunity attack on the same opportunity attack.

I agree I'll have to work on the wording, but can you give me an example of a class reaction feature. I AFB and cant think of one and I want to implement this in my next campaign.

[Pex]

I agree I'll have to work on the wording, but can you give me an example of a class reaction feature. I AFB and cant think of one and I want to implement this in my next campaign.

Battle Master's Riposte maneuver

Shield Spell

Bard's Cutting Word

Light Cleric's Warding Flare

[R.Shackleford]

Battle Master's Riposte maneuver

Shield Spell

Bard's Cutting Word

Light Cleric's Warding Flare

Hellish Rebuke is my favorite.

I also like Defensive Deulist on a caster.

[Pex]

In my experience most DMs either stick to official published content, or use the "Sane Magical Item Prices" guide on this site. Neither has cool magical Halberts or Glaives to offer.

True, but as I said it's not a universal thing.


Frankly, I don't think it's fair to expect the DM to create homebrew content just to ensure your already above average PAM + Sentinel build dominates in all circumstances.

It's well known that polearm users tends to be min-maxers. DMs typically tweak the rules to bring the unoptimized PCs up to par with the other players (i.e. Ranger/Sorcerer tweaks); they often are reluctant to change the rules just so the munchkins become even stronger.

I had a feeling that was where this is going. He should have been a good warrior player and taken Skilled (Medicine, Weaving Tools, Brewing Tools) instead like a proper superior roleplaying focused character. What was I thinking.

[MaxWilson]

Thank you for your advice. Elven Accuracy does make a nice feat to get at level 12+ for a fighter. I'm less convinced of its value for other classes though, as they tend to be more starved for feats.

Sure. I'd say the same thing about Sharpshooter though: if you can't get Archery style and 3 or more at-will attacks eventually, maybe you shouldn't even bother with it.

Fighters rock.


I'll add that my original message was in response to Millface suggesting that Elven Accuracy should be taken instead of PAM, which I find even harder to justify mechanically.

I expect Millface was comparing builds, not just feats. E.g. Str-based PAM GWM Mounted Combatant vs. Dex-based Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert Elven Accuracy.

[Citan]

I´m playing 2 campaigns at the moment:

Neither of the above players picked Polearm master, but as far as I can tell in both cases they would have doubled(or tripled) their damage with one feat. Neither of those players optimize much: one DM´s a lot and is pretty good at it, the other tries but hasn´t grasped it quite yet(literally his second dnd character).

Why aside from fluff reasons wouldn´t a strength based melee character take polearm master?

Also and this might be the reason why: Has anyone ever seen a magical polearm in dnd in a module or adventure, that is one not crafted by another player?
Hi ;)

On topic: no, imo, PAM is not "stupidly good". I find it overall much better than GWM though that's for sure, mainly because you get all benefits whatever AC enemy has, and the fact you get OA when enemy enters reach means higher chance (as little as may be in reality) to kill it next round, which is imo the prime benefit, and not the bonus action attack.

Because let's be honest, barring pure non-EK Fighters, there are not many classes which don't have enough consistent use of their bonus action.
You can already push aside Monks (Martial Arts + everything else), Rogues (Cunning Action), Rangers (bonus action spells and some features IIRC) and mostly Paladins (bonus action smites, some archetype features or spells).
For all those classes, you can easily dual-wield instead to "fill up" turns in which you don't have use for bonus action, which should not come up too often. No special need to invest in feat for that.

Now Barbarians: at high level, few Barbarians are looking for some (of course at low levels it's a different story, once you activated the rage, except if you're Storm Herald). And I'd argue that while PAM is certainly a great feat for them, due to their usual role of "drawing aggro" I'd say picking Sentinel first is better.

Now Fighters: barring EK which get consistent bonus action at level 7, and enough useful spells after level 11, others may certainly like PAM. But again, mainly for the "OA when entering reach" thing. Because otherwise picking up Dual Wielder is plain better overall: you can still use reach weapons, but you can also mix in thrown weapons, and since Fighter has so many feats you can mix it with either Sentinel (more offense) or Defensive Duelist at high level (more defense).

IMO PAM is great mainly...
- Used in combination with other features to achieve a specific goal (like with Sentinel to lock down, or GWM to get consistently better damage, which are the main -only?- uses I see to be honest)
- Or if you wanted initially to pick Shield Master for offense but your DM followed the stupid useless nerf.
- Or if you just want a martial feat that enhances both offense and (indirectly) defense at the same time, and you planned on using quarterstaff for other reasons anyways (looking innocent, using Shillelagh, etc).

But it's far, far from being "stupidly good". :)

Also...

Polearm Master + GWM is the best DPR.

Not necessarily.
- Barring the fact that usually Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert is plain better (but I suppose you were restricting your assertion to melee comparison)...
- Barring all the "get into melee reach" challenges that sometimes make two-hander melee useless or too risky compared to dual-wielding (-hence why Sharpshooter is better- but I know those kind of considerations are never taken into account around here although it really should for any analysis to be any valid)...
Elven Accuracy really reshuffled the cards. As well as spells like Shadow Blade.
GWM's main benefit is the +10 when applicable.
PAM's main benefit is providing another weapon attack.
But Elven Accuracy doesn't work with STR attacks.
While it does work with everything else.

Meaning you can Shillelagh PAM + Elven Accuracy after landing a Faerie Fire or with friends shoving prone.
Meaning you can Shadow Blade + Elven Accuracy after shoving prone with Shield Master (stupid ruling aside) or with friends.

"Yeah, with Elven Accuracy requires advantage, so you have to assume then advantage is enabled on GWM holder side".
Certainly. And it does help in making it kinda accurate.
Except it's not enough. Not again AC 16+ targets. Not if you want to use the -5+10 feature. And if you don't use it, GWM is useless.
Not saying it's a bad choice though: it can be a perfectly fine decision to say "I'll pick it for all those creatures against which my chances to hit are usually good enough".
But it's not the best whatever kind of situation is, contrarily to (mostly) Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert...
Or Elven Accuracy provided of course you have sustainable ways to generate advantage, because then basically every attack you make is a guaranteed hit, mostly.
Or even PAM which is consistently good as long as you meet the unavoidable prerequisite "get near melee reach".

That's why, conversely, as an exception to the previous statement, the Hexblade Warlocks have come right on the top podium of melee damage dealers (if you put aside the survivability ^^) since you can, theorically, stack up GWM + Elven Accuracy + PAM, with pre-setup of Darkness or Greater Invisibility. Long road to go though. ^^

No, PAM doesn't let you shove with a bonus action. It specifically gives you a melee attack that deals 1d4 base damage. It doesn't let you switch what type of attack it is.

MaxWilson is still right though, but he should have been more explicit in reasoning that's for sure.
Thing is: with PAM and Extra Attack, you get a total of three weapon attacks.
2 of which can be replaced by a Shove.
So, yeah, it can be *exactly* like Shield Master, except in that you deal a bit less damage: "Extra Attack" attack 1 (Shove) attack 2 (weapon attack) -> bonus action PAM weapon attack.
Even "worse", with the stupid nerf of Shield Master, now PAM or dual-wielding are the only ways to get consistent option to generate advantage for remaining attacks.

[R.Shackleford]

MaxWilson is still right though, but he should have been more explicit in reasoning that's for sure.
Thing is: with PAM and Extra Attack, you get a total of three weapon attacks.
2 of which can be replaced by a Shove.
So, yeah, it can be *exactly* like Shield Master, except in that you deal a bit less damage: "Extra Attack" attack 1 (Shove) attack 2 (weapon attack) -> bonus action PAM weapon attack.
Even "worse", with the stupid nerf of Shield Master, now PAM or dual-wielding are the only ways to get consistent option to generate advantage for remaining attacks.

Then no. You can not use the extra attack from PAM for a shove. What you are getting into is what you can do with the Attack Action and not what we can do with the feats. So the answer is still a no.

Technically you can shove a creature that is prone, I think, so you could shove the same creature twice... Or just move away and shove a second creature after you make a weapon attack. The Attack Action + Extra Attack is what is being flexible and doing the work.

Attack Action: Shove a creature prone, move, weapon attack another creature, bonus action shove that creature prone.

Shield Master didn't get a nerf, it always worked that way, we just tried to give it a buff... Which it still is a great feat as it is very team work friendly and helps keep a target contained or in position.

[MaxWilson]

MaxWilson is still right though, but he should have been more explicit in reasoning that's for sure.

Everyone I don't have on Ignore got the point, so I have no regrets about not being more explicit.

Edit: Apparently R. Shackleford still didn't get it even after you explained in more detail. You'd probably have it list it something like this to make the point:

Polearm Master:
Attack action: Shove prone, attack at advantage for d10+STR
Bonus action: attack at advantage for d4+STR
Total: d10+d4+STR*2 at advantage

Shield Master, pre-nerf:
Bonus action: shove prone
Attack action: attack at advantage for d8+STR, twice
Total: 2d8+STR*2 at advantage

They're basically equivalent w/rt bonus action attacks, but PAM can benefit from GWM and also comes with a reaction attack.

[Pex]

Everyone I don't have on Ignore got the point, so I have no regrets about not being more explicit.

Edit: Apparently R. Shackleford still didn't get it even after you explained in more detail. You'd probably have it list it something like this to make the point:

Polearm Master:
Attack action: Shove prone, attack at advantage for d10+STR
Bonus action: attack at advantage for d4+STR
Total: d10+d4+STR*2 at advantage

Shield Master, pre-nerf:
Bonus action: shove prone
Attack action: attack at advantage for d8+STR, twice
Total: 2d8+STR*2 at advantage

They're basically equivalent w/rt bonus action attacks, but PAM can benefit from GWM and also comes with a reaction attack.

Shield Master benefits from +2 AC for having the shield, frees up an ASI for whatever choice you want instead of Great Weapon Master, and pseudo evasion.

Both options are good. It's only a matter of personal preference.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: C'mon people. After the first person notes the thread is too old, please stop posting in it. Also, please see the Forum Rules on Thread Necromancy.