Nerfing PAM

[Noldo]

Recent Frenzy-thread (among others) highlighted how powerful the bonus action attack granted by pole arm master is.

Considering that the option also weakens other options that grant a bonus action attack, such as Frenzy or TWF.

If one would like decrease the power of PAM, how about changing it so that it would no longer grant a BA attack, but you could make a haft attack (1d4+STR) in place of primary attack, but since the attack comes from unexpected angle, you would make such attack with advantage?

[Visser3SansTheP]

Recent Frenzy-thread (among others) highlighted how powerful the bonus action attack granted by pole arm master is.

Considering that the option also weakens other options that grant a bonus action attack, such as Frenzy or TWF.

If one would like decrease the power of PAM, how about changing it so that it would no longer grant a BA attack, but you could make a haft attack (1d4+STR) in place of primary attack, but since the attack comes from unexpected angle, you would make such attack with advantage?

It'd be atrocious. TWF and frenzy are the two worst ways of acquiring an extra attack and are both widely acknowledged to be severely underwhelming. Solution is buff those two and create feats for weapons that aren't crossbows and polearms and you're good.

If you want to instead just nerf polearm master's direct damage, then replace the bonus action with something specific to polearm use. A pike is 15+ feet long and therefore not something you should be using as an adventurer, but ignoring the realism thing find a reach based benefit. Maybe have the second benefit be any target you attack with your polearm you don't use up your reaction making opportunity attacks against until the start of your next turn?

[AmbientRaven]

With PAM i remove str mod tot he haft, treat it like an OH weapon. it helped tone it down

[Lollerabe]

Buff frenzy, buff TWF. People are really overreacting as to what type of damg martial classes can perform with GWM and PAM.

Do some quick math on a featless barb compared to say a warlock (DPR wise) and you'll see how horrible martials become if you take away their toys.

[MrStabby]

Buff frenzy, buff TWF. People are really overreacting as to what type of damg martial classes can perform with GWM and PAM.

Do some quick math on a featless barb compared to say a warlock (DPR wise) and you'll see how horrible martials become if you take away their toys.

Even in this contrived scenario it isn't that bad. Even when comparing the offensive power of a pretty defensive build with the offensive power of the offensive warlock you are still comparible.

Saying it is bad without factoring in d12+con hp per level, unarmoured defence (so the barbarian can get a lot of value from ASIs) and so on is a little misleading.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Even in this contrived scenario it isn't that bad. Even when comparing the offensive power of a pretty defensive build with the offensive power of the offensive warlock you are still comparible.

Saying it is bad without factoring in d12+con hp per level, unarmoured defence (so the barbarian can get a lot of value from ASIs) and so on is a little misleading.

We're discussing damage, not survivability. High HP and half damage from physical attacks is hard to compare to longe range plus free knockback.

[Lollerabe]

You think the warlock (he has 9th lvl spells) having comparable at will damage to the barb - a class that can do nothing BUT smack things, isn't bad? No wonder people are freaking out about GWM and PAM then..

[KorvinStarmast]

I see no reason to nerf P.A.M. What's with the hate for a sweet martial feat?

[MrStabby]

We're discussing damage, not survivability. High HP and half damage from physical attacks is hard to compare to longe range plus free knockback.

Actually the word used was power.

I am just saying that you need to look at the bigger picture. Looking at just one aspect of it - like damage, will inevitably lead you to the wrong conclusions.

PAM is great, but don't forget that almost always you are giving up on using dex as your attack stat, no shield, it costs you a feat and every time you are using the bonus action you are not using it for something else.

If you look at something independent of the price you pay then obviously you end up with confused logic.

[BiPolar]

I see no reason to nerf P.A.M. What's with the hate for a sweet martial feat?

Because, as has been discussed in several threads, no one is looking at it in comparison to total control and what you're giving up - only in the damage dealt. Add to that a lack of desire as a DM to acknowledge your party makeup when designing encounters and you've got overpowered feats and abilities.

[KorvinStarmast]

Because, as has been discussed in several threads, no one is looking at it in comparison to total control and what you're giving up - only in the damage dealt. Add to that a lack of desire as a DM to acknowledge your party makeup when designing encounters and you've got overpowered feats and abilities. "overpowered" is a term that usually gets me reaching for a large grain of salt. Fighters are supposed to be masters of fighting. I agree with you about folks forgetting about what is given up, and also the fact that not every swing hits. I don't care what feat someone is using ... failing to score a hit results in 0 damage.

[BiPolar]

"overpowered" is a term that usually gets me reaching for a large grain of salt. Fighters are supposed to be masters of fighting. I agree with you about folks forgetting about what is given up, and also the fact that not every swing hits. I don't care what feat someone is using ... failing to score a hit results in 0 damage.

My party is about to go up against a dragon and my GWM Paladin is very unlikely to go for the -5 even with my advantage. I need to hit my target in order to kill it. I'd love to get an extra 10, but that only works if I hit. The risk is outweighing the reward (I"m the only martial in the group) so I'm unlikely to use it.

[Lollerabe]

I think bipolar was being very sarcastic when he said 'overpowered'.

As in, if you dismiss every single factor except for damage on a huge blob of hp - then yes GWM and PAM will appear overpowered.

Mrstabby I'm not at all dismissing the factors, that was my entire point - if the warlock is a full caster that has acces to many a neat trick through invocations, AND deal the same at will damg as fighters/barb then that is a problem in my book.
Then we are back to 3,5e days of 'what!? You are playing a fighter? Dude don't be a noob, roll a cleric they do everything better anyway'

[BiPolar]

I think bipolar was being very sarcastic when he said 'owerpowered'.

As in, if you dismiss every single factor except for damage on a huge blob of hp - then yes GWM and PAM will appear overpowered.

Mrstabby I'm not at all dismissing the factors, that was my entire point - if the warlock is a full caster that has acces to many a neat trick through invocations, AND deal the same at will damg as fighters/barb then that is a problem in my book.
Then we are back to 3,5e days of 'what!? You are playing a fighter? Dude don't be a noob, roll a cleric they do everything better anyway'

Me? Sarcastic? Never.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Actually the word used was power.

I am just saying that you need to look at the bigger picture. Looking at just one aspect of it - like damage, will inevitably lead you to the wrong conclusions.

PAM is great, but don't forget that almost always you are giving up on using dex as your attack stat, no shield, it costs you a feat and every time you are using the bonus action you are not using it for something else.

If you look at something independent of the price you pay then obviously you end up with confused logic.

In the bigger picture, the warlock gets ninth level spells and the barbarian gets to hit things. And PAM doesn't have to cost you the ability to use a shield, you can just use a quarterstaff and shield.

Bonus action wise, my main problem there is how wildly inconsistent use of the bonus action is. Some classes will never use it and PAM is a straight buff, while some have tons of uses for it and PAM isn't much of a boost at all. On top of that, there are no equivalent feats - if you're a paladin, forget the longsword your best option is a shield and quarterstaff, and if you're a class like the monk using your bonus action is already part of your damage calculation so you can't get any use out of PAM. There should be a feat for every weapon grouping that allows you to specialise in what that weapon is supposed to be good for - a sword feat for duelling, a flail/war pick/warhammer feat for penetrating heavy foes, add spear to PAM, an axe feat based on massive strength, etc.




Though, secondary gripe, weapons in D&D make no goddamn sense. A pike is tended to be 15-20 feet long and only usable as part of a larger pike formation, a rapier should not be able to penetrate plate armour and how the hell does a whip even affect someone in plate let alone do actual damage, a strength 3 character can use a longbow as well as a strength 18 character despite a longbow requiring such strength that it deformed the skeletons of those raised on its use, a crossbow in real life takes 5 rounds to reload once, a fighter loading and firing 4 bolts in 6 seconds would be putting it under so much tension it would explode into kindling, a war pick is no better against a heavily armoured foe than a longsword is, for that matter why are they calling that a longsword when it's clearly an arming sword a longsword is much longer than that, a halberd despite basically ending in a spear can't be used to make piercing attacks, etc etc. And yet people complain about attacking with both ends of a staff wielded in one hand, which is at least possible.

[Lollerabe]

Yeah that's a whole other can of worms, I just watched the new episodes of Vikings - damn those crossbows are silly.

Although most SB palas would be better off with shieldmaster for damg than PAM + quaterstaff, BA prone? Yes please.

[Visser3SansTheP]

"overpowered" is a term that usually gets me reaching for a large grain of salt. Fighters are supposed to be masters of fighting. I agree with you about folks forgetting about what is given up, and also the fact that not every swing hits. I don't care what feat someone is using ... failing to score a hit results in 0 damage.

What does "master of fighting" mean in a game that dedicates 90% of its books to fighting and expects every class to be good at it?

[KorvinStarmast]

Love Your Rant :smallbiggrin:



A pike is tended to be 15-20 feet long and only usable as part of a larger pike formation
a rapier should not be able to penetrate plate armour
how the hell does a whip even affect someone in plate let alone do actual damage
a strength 3 character can use a longbow as well as a strength 18 character despite a longbow requiring such strength that it deformed the skeletons of those raised on its use
a crossbow in real life takes 5 rounds to reload once, a fighter loading and firing 4 bolts in 6 seconds would be putting it under so much tension it would explode into kindling
a war pick is no better against a heavily armoured foe than a longsword is
for that matter why are they calling that a longsword when it's clearly an arming sword a longsword is much longer than that
a halberd despite basically ending in a spear can't be used to make piercing attacks, etc etc.
And yet people complain about attacking with both ends of a staff wielded in one hand, which is at least possible.


Do you want to go back to speed factors and segments and weapon modifications based on armor type? 1e had all that and it could get to be a chore ... getting out of the simulationist mode helps keep the game moving, so I can live with the shortcomings ... still love your rant. :smallbiggrin:

[Visser3SansTheP]

Yeah that's a whole other can of worms, I just watched the new episodes of Vikings - damn those crossbows are silly.

Although most SB palas would be better off with shieldmaster for damg than PAM + quaterstaff, BA prone? Yes please.

Yeah, not sure how they ever felt threatened by vikings when they have a city defended by physics defying machine gun crossbows. It's actually all the fighting in Britain that annoys me most, every single time the vikings visited the isle they were afflicted by a curiously specific form of brain damage and every battle they dropped formation for no reason, 300 style. And on top of that the English armies seem to be outfitted mostly with swords, despite being relatively rare (prestigious and owned by a warrior who could, but this is before most of the important medieval advances in metallurgy so they're uncommon) in that era and the Anglo-Saxons being famous for their axes and long knives, with the spear being the most common weapon of the day and basically not appearing at all.

[Zman]

IMO PAM sis just fine, the only thing that needs tweaks are GWM limited to a single attack per turn and how PAM with Sentinal can stop a creature feom ever engaging in combat, just let them close with the Sentinal. IMO that solves most trouble as I see the only trouble with PAM is when it gets combined with GWM and when it makes any single enemy threat, especially a low AC melee threat unable to ever engage in melee with Sentinal. Besides those interactions PAM is just fine and its D4+STR is a viable bonus action.

[Skylivedk]

My primary issue with PAM is that it's DPR wise stronger than GWM on quite a few classes AND gives you more CC and utility. I'd love for it to keep the second part. My suggestion is buffing the CC parts (if you hit with a reaction, more damage/prone/whatever) and remove the bonus action attack.

Ideally have PAM as higher DPR than SB and lower than GWM

[Cazero]

What does "master of fighting" mean in a game that dedicates 90% of its books to fighting and expects every class to be good at it?

It means being the most skilled with a weapon. When it comes to true fighting, fighters are "master of fighting" and everyone else is made of suck.
Paladins, rangers, monks? Laughable. They need magic to be relevant. If you're going to cheat at fighting you might as well go full warlock.
Rogues? Let's be serious here. While they're very good at avoiding trouble, the fact remain that they're opportunistic a-holes and not combatants.
Barbarians? They're all brute force and suicidal. Even if they are the most credible competitors, you can't call what they do skill.

[Noldo]

My primary issue with PAM is that it's DPR wise stronger than GWM on quite a few classes AND gives you more CC and utility. I'd love for it to keep the second part. My suggestion is buffing the CC parts (if you hit with a reaction, more damage/prone/whatever) and remove the bonus action attack.

Ideally have PAM as higher DPR than SB and lower than GWM

Ideally I think that pole arm should be the utility option on the battlefield. The one that would be used by warriors aiming to control the flow of battle, providing opportunities for the others to carry out their task

The S&B should be the style of choice of the warriors that aim to disregards the flow of battle, establishing a protective sphere around them which would allow others to act in safe.

And THF would be the style of choice for the warrior aiming to inflict most damage. Perhaps TWF as well, with TWF being the king of battlefield again plenty opponents while THF reigning supreme against a single target.

But that is just my vision with no point of contact with D&D 5e.

[coredump]

I would definitely make the haft attack only get 5' range.... No reach.

[Demonic Spoon]

"overpowered" is a term that usually gets me reaching for a large grain of salt. Fighters are supposed to be masters of fighting. I agree with you about folks forgetting about what is given up, and also the fact that not every swing hits. I don't care what feat someone is using ... failing to score a hit results in 0 damage.

PAM isn't a fighter class feature, it's a feat. Feat taxes are bad design. If PAM or similar feats are required for a class to be effective, then the feats should be nerfed and the classes which needed that feat should be improved in other ways.

[Lollerabe]

Zman you realize that with your 'fix' PAM might very well just be a straight better dpr option, while also having reach, less wasted damg, and more reliable damg.

When I look at Kryx' spreadsheets I can't figure out how you can make that nerf to GWM and not just have PAM outshine it in every single way. If that is true you haven't fixed anything, you have just redirected the 'problem'.

[Giant2005]

Instead of nerfing Polearm Master, give everyone a default ability to make a bonus action attack that does 0 damage + their ability modifier. Then it becomes much less mandatory yet still decent enough for consideration.

[Coffee_Dragon]

And yet people complain about attacking with both ends of a staff wielded in one hand, which is at least possible.

Yeah, why should anyone point out things that make no damn sense, when we can stick to the list of things that have merely been simplified in the abstraction?

[jas61292]

PAM isn't a fighter class feature, it's a feat. Feat taxes are bad design. If PAM or similar feats are required for a class to be effective, then the feats should be nerfed and the classes which needed that feat should be improved in other ways.

This is ultimately the problem with a bunch of feats. People will argue that things are not OP, because casters can do as well or better (often conveniently ignoring how limited they are resource wise), but that's completely missing the point. The point of comparison should never be "Fighter + Feat vs Wizard." It should always be "Fighter + Feat vs Fighter + ASI." If the Feat is so much better to the extent that you need to take it or be significantly outclassed, the feat is OP. An OP feat doesn't necessarily make the entire character OP, but it places a general strain on game balance and is a bad thing.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Yeah, why should anyone point out things that make no damn sense, when we can stick to the list of things that have merely been simplified in the abstraction?

Let me get this straight. Attacking with both ends of a staff in one hand, something I can find youtube links to people doing in real life, makes no sense. Whereas a crossbow firing fourty times as fast as it is capable of in real life, a longbow with a draw weight of 150lb being used by someone not even strong enough to pick that much weight off the ground, plate armour designed to be impervious to weapons like the scimitar providing the exact same amount of protection against a whip and a war pick, these things are all simplified and abstract?

[BiPolar]

This is ultimately the problem with a bunch of feats. People will argue that things are not OP, because casters can do as well or better (often conveniently ignoring how limited they are resource wise), but that's completely missing the point. The point of comparison should never be "Fighter + Feat vs Wizard." It should always be "Fighter + Feat vs Fighter + ASI." If the Feat is so much better to the extent that you need to take it or be significantly outclassed, the feat is OP. An OP feat doesn't necessarily make the entire character OP, but it places a general strain on game balance and is a bad thing.

The feat gives you a very specific boost (re: damage), ASI will affect more things more often. It's your to hit modifier, saving throw modifier, ability check modifier, damage modifier. That stuff adds up. If you choose to take the feat AT THE EXPENSE of those things, it better be worth it.

[R.Shackleford]

I see no reason to nerf P.A.M. What's with the hate for a sweet martial feat?

In all honesty I would change it to be less boring not because it deals XYZ damage.

Maor attacks have been the most boring part of D&D since 3e (before that extra attack seemed to be special so not as boring).

[Demonic Spoon]

The feat gives you a very specific boost (re: damage), ASI will affect more things more often. It's your to hit modifier, saving throw modifier, ability check modifier, damage modifier. That stuff adds up. If you choose to take the feat AT THE EXPENSE of those things, it better be worth it.

I'll note that neither my post nor the post you're quoting (in response to mine) actually made a judgment about whether or not PAM was overpowered. It's just that looking at it from the angle of "is this class overpowered with this feat" is the wrong way to go about it; it's more about "is this feat a mandatory pick for this type of character"

[BiPolar]

I'll note that neither my post nor the post you're quoting (in response to mine) actually made a judgment about whether or not PAM was overpowered. It's just that looking at it from the angle of "is this class overpowered with this feat" is the wrong way to go about it; it's more about "is this feat a mandatory pick for this type of character"

I was also not doing that, i was responding to fighter+feat vs fighter+asi. And that an ASI increase (assuming it changes at least one modifier) is a very big deal. It's not a direct damage dealing change, but it helps you in all of those rolls that I stated. Choosing NOT to get that for an increase in only your damage output is a very big decision to make.

[Zman]

Zman you realize that with your 'fix' PAM might very well just be a straight better dpr option, while also having reach, less wasted damg, and more reliable damg.

When I look at Kryx' spreadsheets I can't figure out how you can make that nerf to GWM and not just have PAM outshine it in every single way. If that is true you haven't fixed anything, you have just redirected the 'problem'.

Care to explain exactly what you mean. GWM only affecting a single attack per turn has a relatively low impact at low levels barring the bonus action attack and curbs the DPR boost at higher levels. The Kill/Crit bonus action attack is maintained. PAM requires using lower damage base weapon, allows a lower damage bonus action attack every turn, and an AoO when entering reach. Polearms also benefit less from GWF than the other two handed weapons. Looking at GWF a Greatsword out damages a Polearm by 2.03 damage per hit and by 5.3 Damage when they both get a bonus action attack. Yes, the PAM does get a bonus attack every turn, but that is weight at the cost of bonus action. When the GWM does get a bonus attack it is of a higher quality than the PAM bonus attack. During expected scenarios they roughly even out. What my suggestion did was curb the combination of PAM and GWM, ie getting a high damage bonus attack every single turn. You can't just compare PAM to GWM, you have to compare PAM to GWM to PAM+GWM while keeping in mind other damage output options.

I am open to hearing your argument. Does Kryx have an updated damage sheet, I have an older version I believe.

[Lollerabe]

I'd love to once I have the right numbers and time, as I said I'm not certain I'm right but the following is a quote by Kryx in 'the problem that is -5/+10' thread:

I think there is a lot right with the default balance. There are a few cases that I think need fixing: TWF, Melee Ranger, -5/+10 with advantage, Polearm doing more damage than GWM even though it has reach.
I'll have to do some review and see if I can come up with something better.
Goals would be:
Polearm does ~90% of GWM.
TWF does ~90-95% of GWM.
S&B does ~75% of GWM.
Rogue can do about 80-90% of GWM (as is default)
Monk should be mostly even with S&B (as is default)
Ranged does about ~80% of GWM

Anyway that leads me to believe that PAM by raw deal more damage than GWM (according to Kryx at least) in which case your fix is again not a fix. I'll try to look through various DPR sheets and come back to you :)

[Vogonjeltz]

Recent Frenzy-thread (among others) highlighted how powerful the bonus action attack granted by pole arm master is.

Considering that the option also weakens other options that grant a bonus action attack, such as Frenzy or TWF.

If one would like decrease the power of PAM, how about changing it so that it would no longer grant a BA attack, but you could make a haft attack (1d4+STR) in place of primary attack, but since the attack comes from unexpected angle, you would make such attack with advantage?

PAM is inferior to Frenzy.

It forces a 1d10+str attack and grants a 1d4+str bonus attack

Frenzy allows a 1d12+str attack and grants a 1d12+str bonus attack.

That's 4 damage more on average for the bonus attack and 1 more per attack from the attack action. Not to mention that a crit (And brutal critical) with Frenzy would be 7d12 vs 7d4; a 28 damage difference, on average.

PAM doesn't need nerfing because it's already the worse option for a Berserker.


It'd be atrocious. TWF and frenzy are the two worst ways of acquiring an extra attack and are both widely acknowledged to be severely underwhelming. Solution is buff those two and create feats for weapons that aren't crossbows and polearms and you're good.

Without variant Humans TWF is the only method to acquire an extra attack early on and Frenzy is the only way to get an extra attack with a two-handed weapon (i.e. 1d12 or 2d6).

Even after PAM is available, it comes with the opportunity cost of an ability score increase. So taking PAM not only forces a lower damage die (d10 and a d4, ugh) it also drops the key ability score by 2 points for another 1 point damage reduction on every attack for 8 level.


"overpowered" is a term that usually gets me reaching for a large grain of salt. Fighters are supposed to be masters of fighting. I agree with you about folks forgetting about what is given up, and also the fact that not every swing hits. I don't care what feat someone is using ... failing to score a hit results in 0 damage.

We can average the damage taking into account hit rate.


how PAM with Sentinal can stop a creature feom ever engaging in combat, just let them close with the Sentinal

Provided they hit on that one attack, yes, but it also requires 2 feats which spreads it out over 8 levels.

[Tanarii]

PAM is inferior to Frenzy.PAM can be used in every battle. Frenzy can only be used in one battle. Two (or even more) if you decide to push exhaustion. But yes, when used, Frenzy is more powerful than PAM.

The "balance equation" for Frenzy vs PAM is actually:
Berserker + 1 ASI/Feat vs Totem + PAM

[Firechanter]

What are you complaining about Pikes? Nobody uses a pike!

Glaives and Halberds were NOT 10-15' long. Typical haft length for these weapons is about 6-8'. Entirely usable in melee.
Go chase up "Paradoxes of Defence" by George Silver (free on the web) and read up on what melee combat experts of the year 1600 thought about polearms in relation to other weapons of that era.

[Zman]

I'd love to once I have the right numbers and time, as I said I'm not certain I'm right but the following is a quote by Kryx in 'the problem that is -5/+10' thread:

I think there is a lot right with the default balance. There are a few cases that I think need fixing: TWF, Melee Ranger, -5/+10 with advantage, Polearm doing more damage than GWM even though it has reach.
I'll have to do some review and see if I can come up with something better.
Goals would be:
Polearm does ~90% of GWM.
TWF does ~90-95% of GWM.
S&B does ~75% of GWM.
Rogue can do about 80-90% of GWM (as is default)
Monk should be mostly even with S&B (as is default)
Ranged does about ~80% of GWM

Anyway that leads me to believe that PAM by raw deal more damage than GWM (according to Kryx at least) in which case your fix is again not a fix. I'll try to look through various DPR sheets and come back to you :)

I'll have to look at the numbers more. Without counting an opportunity of GWM to use its bonus action attack or factoring in bonus action opportunity cost that likely plays out especially early on. It has been a while since I've played with this.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Go chase up "Paradoxes of Defence" by George Silver (free on the web) and read up on what melee combat experts of the year 1600 thought about polearms in relation to other weapons of that era.

Haha, this guy is opinionated!


First I will begin with the worst weapon, an imperfect and insufficient weapon, and not worth the speaking of, but now being highly esteemed, therefore not to be unremembered. That is, the single rapier, and rapier and poniard.

How high do you even have to be George Silver the rapier is 1d8 and finesse


The Welch hook or forest bill, has advantage against all manner of weapons whatsoever.

What feat even applies to the forest bill don't leave us hanging

[Sigreid]

I see an odd paradox on these boards. I see people complain that martials don't get nice things. On the other side every time a nice thing for martials is identified someone wants to take it away.

[jas61292]

I see an odd paradox on these boards. I see people complain that martials don't get nice things. On the other side every time a nice thing for martials is identified someone wants to take it away.

Well, those are mostly different people. Some people see them as too weak, others see them as perfectly strong.

On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, not liking their "nice things" is not necessarily about the things being too strong. Balance is both internal and external. While there are some people who would argue that certain martial feats are externally unbalanced, or, in other words that they make them too strong compared to other classes, for the most part I believe the arguments are that they are in fact internally unbalanced, or that the feats are too strong compared to the other options available to martial characters, making them completely necessary to be even vaguely optimized. Even if that doesn't make the character as a whole overpowered, its still the mark of bad game balance, and is not something I want in my game. Personally, I think martials are just as good as any other class type and they don't need internally unbalancing feats to be useful.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Let me get this straight. Attacking with both ends of a staff in one hand, something I can find youtube links to people doing in real life, makes no sense. Whereas a crossbow firing fourty times as fast as it is capable of in real life, a longbow with a draw weight of 150lb being used by someone not even strong enough to pick that much weight off the ground, plate armour designed to be impervious to weapons like the scimitar providing the exact same amount of protection against a whip and a war pick, these things are all simplified and abstract?

Hate to break it to ya, but a 'war pick' will go through plate like... well... like a can opener. So will a rapier. In fact, a tri-foil rapier is, in effect, an ice-pick a foot long on a handle. It WILL punch through plate mail. Speaking as a smith who has made, and used, both. Heck, it's the same tip used on the English Longbowmen's Grey Goose Shaft (which is where the real secret of penetration came from). A Whip isn't intended to do damage, it is used to entangle and trip. Hence the d4 damage output.

Honestly, the bonus attack at 1d4 is nearly worthless, IMO. It's the ability to provoke AoO when entering reach that is key.

If I had a way of exchanging the bonus 'haft' attack for a combat reflexes like ability to have multiple AoO when 'set to receive', I'd take it in a heartbeat.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Hate to break it to ya, but a 'war pick' will go through plate like... well... like a can opener.
Yes. Yes it will. That's why I said 'equal amounts of protection against a whip (cannot do anything to someone in armour) and a war pick (effects on armour should be obvious)'.


So will a rapier. In fact, a tri-foil rapier is, in effect, an ice-pick a foot long on a handle. It WILL punch through plate mail. Speaking as a smith who has made, and used, both. Heck, it's the same tip used on the English Longbowmen's Grey Goose Shaft (which is where the real secret of penetration came from). A Whip isn't intended to do damage, it is used to entangle and trip. Hence the d4 damage output.

Honestly, the bonus attack at 1d4 is nearly worthless, IMO. It's the ability to provoke AoO when entering reach that is key.

If I had a way of exchanging the bonus 'haft' attack for a combat reflexes like ability to have multiple AoO when 'set to receive', I'd take it in a heartbeat.
5e has proved really, really stingy in terms of attacks of opportunity. And a whip does deal damage, it doesn't trip or entangle - used to in 3.5, but for now it's just direct damage. If you hit a dragon with a whip you're dealing slashing damage, not tripping it. And you've seen D&D's rapiers, right? Something a bit closer to an estoc I could see getting through plate, but the kind of rapier D&D assumes would do nothing.

[Lollerabe]

The haft attacks strength isn't in the die though. It could deal a flat 1 damg and still be great. It's the modifiers and/or riders you get to apply. For a lvl 5 barb with with 16 strength and rage going, the haft attack has + 5 damg, the die being a d4 or a d6 isn't all that important.
And this keeps scaling, for Paladins they get to apply strength + IDS at lvl 11, BM fighters can add supp dice on the hit etc.

Not that I disagree with you fluff wise, another feature than 'Here have another hit for free' would've been awesome.
I'm no medieval weapon user, but I doubt polearm wielders were using haft attacks to an extent where it should be a passive part of the 5e feat. Don't know that for sure though.

[Visser3SansTheP]

The haft attacks strength isn't in the die though. It could deal a flat 1 damg and still be great. It's the modifiers and/or riders you get to apply. For a lvl 5 barb with with 16 strength and rage going, the haft attack has + 5 damg, the die being a d4 or a d6 isn't all that important.
And this keeps scaling, for Paladins they get to apply strength + IDS at lvl 11, BM fighters can add supp dice on the hit etc.

Not that I disagree with you fluff wise, another feature than 'Here have another hit for free' would've been awesome.
I'm no medieval weapon user, but I doubt polearm wielders were using haft attacks to an extent where it should be a passive part of the 5e feat. Don't know that for sure though.

Well to be fair, the feat does say polearm master. If anyone's going to, a master will, but yeah attacking with the butt of a pike seems idiotic. The main problem here is a poor thinking through of balancing number vs strength of attacks and the wild variability in how useful a bonus action will be - a paladin has pretty much no other use for his bonus action and therefore finds the feat amazing while a monk is designed around always using his bonus action and therefore finds it useless. Either every class should have been designed to have a good use of their bonus actions, no class should have been designed to have a good use of their bonus actions or no feats that gave a straight up free boost from using a bonus action should have existed.

[Lollerabe]

Or there's a direct correlation between all weapon based feats except for sharpshooter (shield,polearm and great weapon master, crossbow expert, dualwielder) relying on bonus actions, and all martial classes typically associated with those weapons (fighter,barb,paladin,ranger) not relying on bonus actions pr default.

As in - maybe the intent was for weapon based martials, to be able to utilize weapon based feats better than every other class.

Shocking I know :)

Edit: it's not a straight up free boost if it requires an ASI, those two things contradict each other.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Or there's a direct correlation between all weapon based feats except for sharpshooter (shield,polearm and great weapon master, crossbow expert, dualwielder) relying on bonus actions, and all martial classes typically associated with those weapons (fighter,barb,paladin,ranger) not relying on bonus actions pr default.

As in - maybe the intent was for weapon based martials, to be able to utilize weapon based feats better than every other class.

Shocking I know :)

Edit: it's not a straight up free boost if it requires an ASI, those two things contradict each other.

Except it doesn't work like that. A fighter is supposed to be the weapon masteriest, but a paladin gets more use out of it than a fighter does.

[djreynolds]

If I'm a beserker or even a war cleric, I can have a bonus attack which can be a full swing. And if I have PAM, I have bonus attack but it is a 1d4 butt stroke.

Can't you choose which one you want to use?

If I'm a fighter/rogue with PAM, for my bonus action I could disengage or use the bonus attack, or am I forced to use one or the other?

[Lollerabe]

That surely depends on what feats we are talking about, fighters gets more mileage out of GWM than Paladins fx, and the fighter has acces to some combos the paladin will never utilize. I haven't seen it in action but a battlemaster with crossbow expert and sharpshooter should be a DPR sight to behold.

Edit: Reynolds you can of course chose, as to the frenzy barb well.. Yeah, there's another thread on that issue.

[Skylivedk]

Care to explain exactly what you mean. GWM only affecting a single attack per turn has a relatively low impact at low levels barring the bonus action attack and curbs the DPR boost at higher levels. The Kill/Crit bonus action attack is maintained. PAM requires using lower damage base weapon, allows a lower damage bonus action attack every turn, and an AoO when entering reach. Polearms also benefit less from GWF than the other two handed weapons. Looking at GWF a Greatsword out damages a Polearm by 2.03 damage per hit and by 5.3 Damage when they both get a bonus action attack. Yes, the PAM does get a bonus attack every turn, but that is weight at the cost of bonus action. When the GWM does get a bonus attack it is of a higher quality than the PAM bonus attack. During expected scenarios they roughly even out. What my suggestion did was curb the combination of PAM and GWM, ie getting a high damage bonus attack every single turn. You can't just compare PAM to GWM, you have to compare PAM to GWM to PAM+GWM while keeping in mind other damage output options.

I am open to hearing your argument. Does Kryx have an updated damage sheet, I have an older version I believe.

Kryx' sheet doesn't need an update for this discussion. None of our numbers have changed since release. His sheets do include presumptions for how many attacks are made as reactions and bonus actions by Polearm Masters (I think it is the S-sheet that has the probabilities... can't reacall for sure though).

Going by his calculations, PAM is straight better than GWM for a couple of classes, and super close for the rest. Both are wrong IMO. The added CC and reduced risk (due to not being up close and personal) should be balanced by less damage.


PAM is inferior to Frenzy.

It forces a 1d10+str attack and grants a 1d4+str bonus attack

Frenzy allows a 1d12+str attack and grants a 1d12+str bonus attack.

That's 4 damage more on average for the bonus attack and 1 more per attack from the attack action. Not to mention that a crit (And brutal critical) with Frenzy would be 7d12 vs 7d4; a 28 damage difference, on average.

PAM doesn't need nerfing because it's already the worse option for a Berserker.

I don't think anyone would pick PAM on the Berserker. Then again, I don't think, in a game with feats, that anyone would the Berserker (for anything but fluff)

More exactly: the Berserker, in a game allowing feats, is the worst martial option due to his main benefit being provided so easily by almost every single martial feat without an opportunity cost even approaching the Berserker's. Your math is also not very telling. PAM will more often crit with the main attack (due to there being twice the amount of main attacks in a normal round, and quite often more with the reaction attacks).



Without variant Humans TWF is the only method to acquire an extra attack early on and Frenzy is the only way to get an extra attack with a two-handed weapon (i.e. 1d12 or 2d6).

Even after PAM is available, it comes with the opportunity cost of an ability score increase. So taking PAM not only forces a lower damage die (d10 and a d4, ugh) it also drops the key ability score by 2 points for another 1 point damage reduction on every attack for 8 level.



We can average the damage taking into account hit rate.



Provided they hit on that one attack, yes, but it also requires 2 feats which spreads it out over 8 levels.

Again, not true: Crossbow Expert also allows for an extra attack. I don't mind martial classes being really good at fighting. I love it. I dislike that PAM is strictly better DPR than GWM on quite a few classes.


Hate to break it to ya, but a 'war pick' will go through plate like... well... like a can opener. So will a rapier. In fact, a tri-foil rapier is, in effect, an ice-pick a foot long on a handle. It WILL punch through plate mail. Speaking as a smith who has made, and used, both. Heck, it's the same tip used on the English Longbowmen's Grey Goose Shaft (which is where the real secret of penetration came from). A Whip isn't intended to do damage, it is used to entangle and trip. Hence the d4 damage output.

Honestly, the bonus attack at 1d4 is nearly worthless, IMO. It's the ability to provoke AoO when entering reach that is key.

If I had a way of exchanging the bonus 'haft' attack for a combat reflexes like ability to have multiple AoO when 'set to receive', I'd take it in a heartbeat.

I was thinking of increasing the damage for the reaction attack (double? Add 2*proficiency modifier?). The bonus attack is very far from worthless. As Lollerabe shows, it quickly becomes a lot more useful with rider effects. And (even though it is a ****ty comparison, because TWF is ****), compared to TWF it is a no-brainer.


If I'm a beserker or even a war cleric, I can have a bonus attack which can be a full swing. And if I have PAM, I have bonus attack but it is a 1d4 butt stroke.

Can't you choose which one you want to use?

If I'm a fighter/rogue with PAM, for my bonus action I could disengage or use the bonus attack, or am I forced to use one or the other?

Yes, you can choose. But...
Why would you ever use PAM with a fighter/rogue anyway? Sneak Attack wouldn't work.
Why would you play a berserker in a game with feats? (see further up)
And why should we balance martial feats after a caster's rather mediocre attempt at having more attacks.


Well to be fair, the feat does say polearm master. If anyone's going to, a master will, but yeah attacking with the butt of a pike seems idiotic. The main problem here is a poor thinking through of balancing number vs strength of attacks and the wild variability in how useful a bonus action will be - a paladin has pretty much no other use for his bonus action and therefore finds the feat amazing while a monk is designed around always using his bonus action and therefore finds it useless. Either every class should have been designed to have a good use of their bonus actions, no class should have been designed to have a good use of their bonus actions or no feats that gave a straight up free boost from using a bonus action should have existed.

I'll talk with my group. For starters I'd like to limit the butt-end attack to a reach of 5 feet.

I disagree with your point on bonus actions. I'm quite fond of the action economy system, and playing a rogue is highly reliant on you having constant bonus actions available. Bonus Actions are currently an extremely important part of the balancing act, and doing away with them is quite a (cumbersome) task.

I don't mind feats giving Bonus Action options. I only mind the fact that PAM and Crossbow Expert both outperform the two bonus action attack options that seem to make the most sense: the Berserker and TWF.

To be honest, I think both the Berserker and TWF need fixing separately (I play with a modded TWF - Berserkers, I'd probably give damage dice instead of Bonus Action attacks) - but, Crossbow Expert and PAM are still iffy IMO.

[djreynolds]

I like rogue, for 2 reasons, cunning action and expertise, easy 2 level dip. A fighter/rogue shield master is awesome, I'm not there for the sneak attack, but disengage is sweet as a bonus action.

PAM is awesome because it can be coupled with GWM, which TWF cannot. But it takes a few levels to come online.

A TWF fix we use is two-weapon rend, if you hit with both weapons you rend and add double your proficiency in damage. Or you can kick-off and disengage freely, or attempt to shove. It gives something to strength builds and dex builds. Easy to incorporate.

[Lollerabe]

That's similar to what we are using: rend - if you hit with a MH and a OH attack you deal your prof as bonus damg (only x2 if you got acces to the extra attack feature, otherwise it's way to good on rogues) however the rend mechanic is part of the dualwielder feat - if every other weapon type requires a feat to shine so should TWF.

We also switched the two weapon fightstyle and dual wielder around. So the feat adds mod to offhand + rend, the fightstyle adds non light weps +1 to hit (when wielding two weps) and the double weapon draw.

This is a preemptive fix at our table though, no one has used TWF since the change (I do have a hilldwarf TWF ranger/barb inspired by warhammers 'slayers' on my character contengiency list however)

Edit: realized I used the word 'however' 6 times, I need to work on my vocabulary :)

[Firechanter]

On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, not liking their "nice things" is not necessarily about the things being too strong. Balance is both internal and external.

QFT.
The core problem with PAM, just as with Crossbow Expert, is that it makes one type of weapon superior because it offers superior support. If you are willing and able to invest several feats into your fighting style, then there is virtually no way around Polearms (or Crossbows). What adds to this issue is that these weapon types are not exactly _iconic_ for classical fantasy.
Look at any truly badass hero in western culture - if their weapons are mentioned in any way, it's always about swords or bows. It just feels a bit weird that in 5E, if you want to be the baddest ass in town you need to pick up a polearm or crossbow.

--> Solution: Don't nerf PAM; add equally worthwhile feat support for other combat styles.


Honestly, the bonus attack at 1d4 is nearly worthless, IMO.

Depends on two things:
1, what else are you going to do with your Bonus Action?
2. can you spice up the damage somehow?

It's wonderful for a Paladin. Another attack is another opportunity to Smite. Particularly if you are holding back your Smites for Critical Hits. Another attack is another chance to Crit and add a boatload of Smite dice that will make the d4 weapon die rather irrelevant.


If I had a way of exchanging the bonus 'haft' attack for a combat reflexes like ability to have multiple AoO when 'set to receive', I'd take it in a heartbeat.

That option has found its way into the game with SCAG. The Tunnel Fighter does pretty much exactly that; you don't even need to "set" your weapon to pull it off.

[Visser3SansTheP]

QFT.
That option has found its way into the game with SCAG. The Tunnel Fighter does pretty much exactly that; you don't even need to "set" your weapon to pull it off.

Tunnel fighter is from UA and requires you to use a bonus action, so yes you do need to "set" your weapon.

[Firechanter]

Tunnel fighter is from UA and requires you to use a bonus action, so yes you do need to "set" your weapon.

Oh? I stand corrected. Then that UA must have been released about simultaneously with the SCAG, I suppose. ^^
But using a Bonus Action is a very good deal, still. Better than having to use Ready at any rate.

[Lollerabe]

Tunnel fighter is in my opinion a horrible designed feature as it's presented in the UA. Concept is cool, the execution really breaks down the 5e action economy though.

[R.Shackleford]

Tunnel fighter is in my opinion a horrible designed feature as it's presented in the UA. Concept is cool, the execution really breaks down the 5e action economy though.

Good. Fighters need cool things to keep up with the monster's and caster's cool things.

Opportunity Attacks are pretty weak in 5e, unless you have a nova that works off them, which the fighter generally does not as their Nova works off their extra attack feature.

Actually it fits right in with the fighter, they are all about breaking that action economy.

About the only time it really gets borked is when a rogue MCs into Tunnel Fighter.

[Lollerabe]

I'd say PAM + sentinel + tunnel fighter gets way more 'borked' than rogues, but hey to each their own

[R.Shackleford]

I'd say PAM + sentinel + tunnel fighter gets way more 'borked' than rogues, but hey to each their own

Neither is really as bad in practice as they are in theory.

I've seen more players forget about their abilities or forget to use the tactics than the dpr theory can take into account.

There are also so many ways to get around the player using these combos, not negate, but work around. If a creature sees his ally fight the fighter using the PST tactic they are Probabaly going to nope the hell out (depending on Int and if there is a leader among them) and try a different approach.

A fighter or a rogue that deals more damage is just making combat go by quicker. They aren't adding anything to the battle that they weren't going to bring before.

Of course, my games no longer use OA, we replaced them with the advantage/disadvantage system.

[Cazero]

Good. Fighters need cool things to keep up with the monster's and caster's cool things.
They need cool things as class features and feats. A fighting style should be a significant demarcation of your style of play, and if you chose to make it circumstancial bonus it shouldn't be that niche. And it shouldn't be that overpowered either.
Having every single fighter get unlimited reactions for opportunity attacks at high level would be awesome and solve the problem of their lack of competitivity at reaction damage. Tunnel Fighter fighting style is a stupid tax for anyone wanting to protect the squishies and denies them that other cool fighting style they also need to deal competitive damage. Plus it steps on the toes of the Protection fighting style.

[R.Shackleford]

They need cool things as class features and feats. A fighting style should be a significant demarcation of your style of play, and if you chose to make it circumstancial bonus it shouldn't be that niche. And it shouldn't be that overpowered either.
Having every single fighter get unlimited reactions for opportunity attacks at high level would be awesome and solve the problem of their lack of competitivity at reaction damage. Tunnel Fighter fighting style is a stupid tax for anyone wanting to protect the squishies and denies them that other cool fighting style they also need to deal competitive damage. Plus it steps on the toes of the Protection fighting style.

I would say by level 7 or so, around CR 6 or 8 the Marilith gets unlimited OA.

I'm not disagreeing though, just within the boundaries of the current game a fighting style being as it is... Is kinda the best you are going to get. All fighter types I've seen are severely lacking in *awesome stuff*. They get good stuff at low level but the fall off.

The thing is, with a non-lazy DM, DPR is a joke. If a player is getting by due to DPR then that is the DM's fault for using the same boring tactics over and over.

Hell, there is even a lazy way to combat high DPR builds... Hordes (minions). But I prefer tactics, dynamic fights, and forcing players out of their comfort zones from time to time (like saving the princess From a mind flayer or fighting Big T to save a city... No amount of DPR will make that decision easy).

[Zman]

Kryx' sheet doesn't need an update for this discussion. None of our numbers have changed since release. His sheets do include presumptions for how many attacks are made as reactions and bonus actions by Polearm Masters (I think it is the S-sheet that has the probabilities... can't reacall for sure though).

Going by his calculations, PAM is straight better than GWM for a couple of classes, and super close for the rest. Both are wrong IMO. The added CC and reduced risk (due to not being up close and personal) should be balanced by less damage.



Kryx's calculations are useful, but not perfect. He doesn't factor things like opportunity cost for the bonus action or advantage into his calculations. Also, it doesn't factor in a wide arrange of ACs i.e. Low ACs where GWM damage spikes and skews results. Also, when a bonus attack triggers DPR without Power Attacking is higher. Even straight damage for a high level fighter with GWF and GWM is higher than a GWF PAM and the GWM bonus attack is balanced against the AoO/Reach without ever Power Attacking. I mean just GWF with four attacks is higher than GWF PAM 13.33x4 vs 11.3x4+8. Now, a lower attack class i.e. Paladin or Barbarian always fairs better with PAM, true, but that is only because of the bonus action attack and opportunity attack. There is still opportunity cost involved. I'd say GWM and PAM are roughly equivalent given the intangibles we need to balance out.

PAM is strong, but IMO it is only most problematic when feats are chained together. When your bonus action attack is a Power Attack, or when you lock down a 5' melee enemy and render them unable to engage in melee. I see combinations as more problematic. I also look at all intra melee balance and PAM+GWM blows DPR ranges out of the water. IMO GWM needed a tweak, PAM may as well, maybe I just put too much value on having a bonus action available.

[Skylivedk]

QFT.
The core problem with PAM, just as with Crossbow Expert, is that it makes one type of weapon superior because it offers superior support. If you are willing and able to invest several feats into your fighting style, then there is virtually no way around Polearms (or Crossbows). What adds to this issue is that these weapon types are not exactly _iconic_ for classical fantasy.
Look at any truly badass hero in western culture - if their weapons are mentioned in any way, it's always about swords or bows. It just feels a bit weird that in 5E, if you want to be the baddest ass in town you need to pick up a polearm or crossbow.

--> Solution: Don't nerf PAM; add equally worthwhile feat support for other combat styles.

I have already buffed TWF (sorely needed). I've nerfed Sharpshooter slightly (cover level, except total cover, counts as being one lower on the ladder instead of ignore all except total cover). Great Weapon Master I haven't touched. Crossbow Expert, I haven't touched (yet - not sure I will).

If I am to buff all other weapon styles, I'd be redesigning all feats. It seems to be the more complex solution. Besides, I've yet to understand why PAM has to give an attack more. That feature, IMO, belongs to TWF. Perhaps change OA to be as many times as you have attacks during your Attack action.


Kryx's calculations are useful, but not perfect. He doesn't factor things like opportunity cost for the bonus action or advantage into his calculations.

As Lollerabe pointed out: most martial classes don't have that many bonus action options anyway, so not a huge opportunity cost. You're right about advantage (especially since it is better for GWM than for PAM).


Also, it doesn't factor in a wide arrange of ACs i.e. Low ACs where GWM damage spikes and skews results. Also, when a bonus attack triggers DPR without Power Attacking is higher. Even straight damage for a high level fighter with GWF and GWM is higher than a GWF PAM and the GWM bonus attack is balanced against the AoO/Reach without ever Power Attacking. I mean just GWF with four attacks is higher than GWF PAM 13.33x4 vs 11.3x4+8. Now, a lower attack class i.e. Paladin or Barbarian always fairs better with PAM, true, but that is only because of the bonus action attack and opportunity attack. There is still opportunity cost involved. I'd say GWM and PAM are roughly equivalent given the intangibles we need to balance out.

And then we loudly agree? : right now, DPR-wise, PAM and GWM are largely the same. PAM has more utility, better spread and better control functions. That isn't how it should be, IMO. If you have more options then each option should be a bit weaker



PAM is strong, but IMO it is only most problematic when feats are chained together. When your bonus action attack is a Power Attack, or when you lock down a 5' melee enemy and render them unable to engage in melee. I see combinations as more problematic. I also look at all intra melee balance and PAM+GWM blows DPR ranges out of the water. IMO GWM needed a tweak, PAM may as well, maybe I just put too much value on having a bonus action available.

GWM didn't need a tweak, IMO. Especially not if PAM remains untouched. I want GWM to be able to deal a ton of damage. Due to PAM's increased tactical application, I'm fine with PAM having some better synergies than most others. I'd just prefer those synergies not to depend on that extra attack which I would love to change

[Theodoxus]

The problem with PAM and GWM, which you all seem to have missed - is it makes the Berserker Barbarian a trap option. In a game pretty famous (heck, there's a newish thread by a new convert praising it) for not having traps - this one is a huge glaring red flag.

Now, this certainly aligns itself up with the general consensus that promoting very specific weaponry over others is a problem - but the barbarian one is a case of system mastery that is easily overlooked. Sure, there are definitely times when things should synergize, and when they shouldn't - but in both cases, it should be readily obvious - not require a nuanced reasoning of when a specific action will be better than another (and in the case of choosing Frenzy over PAMs bonus attack - or generating a cleave from GWM; its a no-brainer when you grok the concept).

Heck, I'd be happy with letting berserkers boosting the damage in the haft attack from PAM to a full 1d10 in lieu of Frenzy. It's a specific synergistic bonus for getting an otherwise trap feat choice.

[Zman]

As Lollerabe pointed out: most martial classes don't have that many bonus action options anyway, so not a huge opportunity cost. You're right about advantage (especially since it is better for GWM than for PAM).



And then we loudly agree? : right now, DPR-wise, PAM and GWM are largely the same. PAM has more utility, better spread and better control functions. That isn't how it should be, IMO. If you have more options then each option should be a bit weaker



GWM didn't need a tweak, IMO. Especially not if PAM remains untouched. I want GWM to be able to deal a ton of damage. Due to PAM's increased tactical application, I'm fine with PAM having some better synergies than most others. I'd just prefer those synergies not to depend on that extra attack which I would love to change

Where we are disagreeing on GWM is that I do not feel the level it is capable of blowing the prexisting damage assumptions and ranges out of the water is ok, especially when combined with PAM. I feel that the potential damage capable under GWM spikes too high and needed to be curbed, and limiting it to only one attack per turn means that it still adds damage, has minimal effect at low level, and the bonus action on kill or crit is still solid. PAM does add damage and utility, and is better, but the combination of the two is an entirely new level especially with the low damage bonus attack that can benefit from Power Attack for less cost than standard attacks.

[Vogonjeltz]

PAM can be used in every battle. Frenzy can only be used in one battle. Two (or even more) if you decide to push exhaustion. But yes, when used, Frenzy is more powerful than PAM.

The "balance equation" for Frenzy vs PAM is actually:
Berserker + 1 ASI/Feat vs Totem + PAM

Fair point, I think Frenzy gets pretty sick if you have the means to avoid/remove exhaustion more often than by simply resting.


I don't think anyone would pick PAM on the Berserker. Then again, I don't think, in a game with feats, that anyone would the Berserker (for anything but fluff)

More exactly: the Berserker, in a game allowing feats, is the worst martial option due to his main benefit being provided so easily by almost every single martial feat without an opportunity cost even approaching the Berserker's. Your math is also not very telling. PAM will more often crit with the main attack (due to there being twice the amount of main attacks in a normal round, and quite often more with the reaction attacks).

The problem being that by taking the feat, the character is behind their ability scores, which are worth damage/defense.

Taking PAM is an opportunity cost over increasing str by 2 points, so they are hitting 5% less often and doing 1 less damage per hit. The reaction attack is only happening if the enemy close range (As opposed to the Barbarian closing range) and on that basis lacks synergy with Rage which requires the Barbarian to get hurt or make attacks or lose the rage; They can't just sit back and wait for the enemy to enter their reach.

Other than the 1 potential reaction attack from an opponent choosing to close with the Barbarian instead of kiting them to end rage, there's no added benefit.


Again, not true: Crossbow Expert also allows for an extra attack. I don't mind martial classes being really good at fighting. I love it. I dislike that PAM is strictly better DPR than GWM on quite a few classes.

Crossbow Expert is a feat and you may have noticed that I mentioned this is before feats are available.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that PAM provides more DPR than GWM on a Barbarian:

Not even using GWM (or Reckless Attack) the Raging Frenzied Beserker's DPR at 20 with max to hit against AC 28 is 19.65 with a Greataxe
vs
16.65 for the polearm with PAM same conditions. Mostly because the polearm and the PAM bonus attack do less damage than the greataxe and benefit less from the brutal criticals.

[Saggo]

Kryx's calculations are useful, but not perfect. He doesn't factor things like opportunity cost for the bonus action or advantage into his calculations. Also, it doesn't factor in a wide arrange of ACs i.e. Low ACs where GWM damage spikes and skews results.

It accounts for Reckless, Trip, and Foresight advantages and the ACs are all averages or lower (situations favoring GWM/SS, i.e. the most common likely encounters). But it is self-professed as a baseline. Fortunately, it's pretty simple to make a copy and adjust ACs or builds to get specific data.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Fair point, I think Frenzy gets pretty sick if you have the means to avoid/remove exhaustion more often than by simply resting.


But the only real means is a 5th level cleric slot, which is a huge cost. You're asking them to give up something expensive just to compensate for your bad class feature, and the only alternative is resting constantly which favours casters a lot more than the barbarian.

[Firechanter]

The problem with PAM and GWM, which you all seem to have missed - is it makes the Berserker Barbarian a trap option.

The Berserker is a trap option already, even in a game without feats. No need to pull out PAM/GWM.

[RickAllison]

But the only real means is a 5th level cleric slot, which is a huge cost. You're asking them to give up something expensive just to compensate for your bad class feature, and the only alternative is resting constantly which favours casters a lot more than the barbarian.

I'll posit a possible solution here. What if we made Frenzy offer a Con saving throw to avoid gaining exhaustion, the DC of which increases with use between long rests? It would still keep it relatively limited, but it might give Berserker a much-needed boost.

[Vogonjeltz]

But the only real means is a 5th level cleric slot, which is a huge cost. You're asking them to give up something expensive just to compensate for your bad class feature, and the only alternative is resting constantly which favours casters a lot more than the barbarian.

There's also the potion of vitality, I didn't check the DMG treasure tables yet to see how often those show up, but they'd probably be a huge thing to find a recipe for.

[RickAllison]

There's also the potion of vitality, I didn't check the DMG treasure tables yet to see how often those show up, but they'd probably be a huge thing to find a recipe for.

It's only on loot table D, and it has a 5% chance of appearing on rolls for that table. For CR 5-10 hoards, that is a 0.3% chance to pick one up. For CR 11-16 hoards, it is 2%. For 17+ hoards, it is 5.6%.

[Firechanter]

There's also the potion of vitality, I didn't check the DMG treasure tables yet to see how often those show up, but they'd probably be a huge thing to find a recipe for.

"Very Rare".
As it happens we rolled up one of these just today. One potion, not one recipe. Just checked, it's a 5% chance on Table D.
Chances that one of these will be found in a random treasure hoard (cumulative):

CR <5: 0
CR 5-10: 0,3%
CR 11-16: 1,5%

So, yeah. Not something you can count on in any way. You might run an entire campaign from 1-20 and never find one of them.

[R.Shackleford]

Hmmm after reading some more maybe fighting styles should have been PAM, Sentinel, Crossbow Master, and Sharpshooter, etc... and then give the core fighter boosts and growth through their fighting style choice.

/shrug

[Visser3SansTheP]

I'll posit a possible solution here. What if we made Frenzy offer a Con saving throw to avoid gaining exhaustion, the DC of which increases with use between long rests? It would still keep it relatively limited, but it might give Berserker a much-needed boost.

Why not just make frenzy actually worth the exhaustion cost?

Choose between having it ignore resistance/immunity to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage if you attack with advantage and have each hit automatically cleave to an extra target. Bam, worth the price of admission.

[Skylivedk]

Pardon me bringing this one back from the dead, but I'm quite interested in finding a way to make PAM viable without giving it a bonus attack (since I'd prefer at-will bonus action attacks to be a TWF-feature).

I'm thinking something along the lines of:
AoO's cause the target's attacks next round to be with disadvantage
AoO's cause 2*prof bonus extra damage

Thoughts?

(And please keep the frenzy barbarian out of this discussion- he is filled with frenzy about his comparative weakness in a feat-filled game in his own thread somewhere)

[Gtdead]

Any defensive bonus is going to definitely make this overpowered (I don't really believe it is). Reach, free AoO and disadvantage on attacks? Where do I sign?

Double proficiency to damage is a better suggestion. It will never be like an extra attack, but it can be like a GWM without the -5 to hit.

[Giant2005]

Pardon me bringing this one back from the dead, but I'm quite interested in finding a way to make PAM viable without giving it a bonus attack (since I'd prefer at-will bonus action attacks to be a TWF-feature).

I'm thinking something along the lines of:
AoO's cause the target's attacks next round to be with disadvantage
AoO's cause 2*prof bonus extra damage

Thoughts?

(And please keep the frenzy barbarian out of this discussion- he is filled with frenzy about his comparative weakness in a feat-filled game in his own thread somewhere)

Just take Shield Master's lead and make the bonus action attack an attack that isn't an attack.
Make a bonus action shove that can only be used to push an opponent, but pushes them back 10', that way you can push them out of reach so they have to re-enter and trigger the OA. Two successful rolls plus both your bonus action and reaction in order to land a single extra attack doesn't sound so unbalanced.

[PoeticDwarf]

Recent Frenzy-thread (among others) highlighted how powerful the bonus action attack granted by pole arm master is.

Considering that the option also weakens other options that grant a bonus action attack, such as Frenzy or TWF.

If one would like decrease the power of PAM, how about changing it so that it would no longer grant a BA attack, but you could make a haft attack (1d4+STR) in place of primary attack, but since the attack comes from unexpected angle, you would make such attack with advantage?

You could do it the other way 'round indeed. If you want to nerf it, I'd say you can make an attack with the other side instead of a normal one. With +5 on the attack but -5 on the damage roll as opposite of GWM. Of course, with GWM and this feat you'd just have +5 damage and no penalty on anything else, but is it worth two feats if you can get +10 for one feat? With the reaction attack it would still be strong too

[Skylivedk]

Any defensive bonus is going to definitely make this overpowered (I don't really believe it is). Reach, free AoO and disadvantage on attacks? Where do I sign?

Double proficiency to damage is a better suggestion. It will never be like an extra attack, but it can be like a GWM without the -5 to hit.

I think Double Proficiency to damage on AoO's alone is not strong enough. Currently PAM is a little too strong IMO, since it has more tactical viability than GWM while offering almost the same (and on some) DPR.

What if the disadvantage was only for the next attack?

- and would you have other control options that could integrated?

The issue is that the bonus attack is such a huge part of making the feat viable that unless you want to hit a homerun with your nerf-bat, the substitution also has to be pretty strong.


Just take Shield Master's lead and make the bonus action attack an attack that isn't an attack.
Make a bonus action shove that can only be used to push an opponent, but pushes them back 10', that way you can push them out of reach so they have to re-enter and trigger the OA. Two successful rolls plus both your bonus action and reaction in order to land a single extra attack doesn't sound so unbalanced.

I kind of like this.. My concern is only that it is very, very close to the Shield Master's ability (which is why I went with the disadvantage solution), and perhaps 10 feet is a bit much? 5 feet and moving would give the PAM user a bit much, and "stick and move" is very much the way glaives etc. were used. (pushing someone 10 feet is quite a lot if you think about it IRL)


You could do it the other way 'round indeed. If you want to nerf it, I'd say you can make an attack with the other side instead of a normal one. With +5 on the attack but -5 on the damage roll as opposite of GWM. Of course, with GWM and this feat you'd just have +5 damage and no penalty on anything else, but is it worth two feats if you can get +10 for one feat? With the reaction attack it would still be strong too

I'm way more cautious about giving bonuses to accuracy - especially if you start thinking about rider effects of different kinds, a +5 might just be game-breaking. Also I'm not really sure how the flavour/descriptions would justify a +5 to hit.

Once again, thank you guys!