PAM Shove/Prone

[Erose]

It's been suggested this question take place here rather than the RAW thread. Any opinion is welcome. The question I have pertains to using a polearms reach (10ft) in a shove/knock prone attempt. The players handbook states that your target must be within reach and does not clarify precisely how one must physically attempt the maneuver. My question to you, would it be allowed in your campaign?

[R.Shackleford]

Martials need all the help they can get when it comes to non-damaging abilities and features. I would allow pretty much any basic maneuver, including the help action, through this bonus attack.

[Lombra]

You have the reach to get to the target, so no problem imo: I imagine you could use the plearm to hit the legs in order to make the target fall or you just push it to make it loose balance.

[NewDM]

Yeah after level 5 they need a lot of help to do anything but straight up damage. I'd allow any advantage in favor of non-casters. Unfortunately a wizard with Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade and a pole arm + Pole arm master can do the same thing, but be more effective.

[RickAllison]

Yeah after level 5 they need a lot of help to do anything but straight up damage. I'd allow any advantage in favor of non-casters. Unfortunately a wizard with Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade and a pole arm + Pole arm master can do the same thing, but be more effective.

No, he can't. He can't Shove with GFB or BB, so he cant combine those with the maneuver. If the wizard wants to use it, he has to choose not to use the spell. Meanwhile, the martials with Extra Attack can do it multiple times per round. So the wizard can do it, but he will be less effective at it.

[JoeJ]

Yeah after level 5 they need a lot of help to do anything but straight up damage.

What abilities do they have before level 5 that they don't still have after that point?

[R.Shackleford]

What abilities do they have before level 5 that they don't still have after that point?

It's more that their abilities don't grow based on what the are expected to come up against.

Like, if martials were made more like casters in the sense that their abilities actually grow, the Fighter/Barbarian's shove would eventually work like the Kracken's "Fling" instead of identical to a level 1 Fighter's shove.

[Foxhound438]

It's more that their abilities don't grow based on what the are expected to come up against.

Like, if martials were made more like casters in the sense that their abilities actually grow, the Fighter/Barbarian's shove would eventually work like the Kracken's "Fling" instead of identical to a level 1 Fighter's shove.

the difference comes in the fact that you can shove prone and grapple (preventing them from recovering) in the same turn; or alternatively, you can shove and then hit the thing.

For the OP's question, I'd allow it but it wouldn't do you much good; you have disadvantage on attacks against a prone creature that's more than 5 feet away. (phb 292)

[djreynolds]

the difference comes in the fact that you can shove prone and grapple (preventing them from recovering) in the same turn; or alternatively, you can shove and then hit the thing.

For the OP's question, I'd allow it but it wouldn't do you much good; you have disadvantage on attacks against a prone creature that's more than 5 feet away. (phb 292)

Excellent find.

You should have some movement though to help close the distance?

I would allow it as well, a battlemaster can do it with an attack, you are giving up an attack to basically subdue someone or shove/prone them.

I wouldn't think I would allow a cantrip with it.

Can a battlemaster add his SD and a cantrip together? I don't know, that may could just be a houserule, but I could see an high elven battlemaster doing it in a story.

[Mith]

or the OP's question, I'd allow it but it wouldn't do you much good; you have disadvantage on attacks against a prone creature that's more than 5 feet away. (phb 292)

Considering that a pole arm is designed to allow one to effectively harm an opponent 10 ft away, that strikes me as odd.

[RickAllison]

Considering that a pole arm is designed to allow one to effectively harm an opponent 10 ft away, that strikes me as odd.

The entire advantage of the Polearm is in the reach and (for halberds, etc.) the power from more arc. These same qualities also make it harder to control. Rather than having a tightly-controlled choke grip, one is trying to strike a body while a bad swing knocks the weapon against the ground and ceding ground. It makes perfect sense for the Polearm to have disadvantage.

[R.Shackleford]

the difference comes in the fact that you can shove prone and grapple (preventing them from recovering) in the same turn; or alternatively, you can shove and then hit the thing.

For the OP's question, I'd allow it but it wouldn't do you much good; you have disadvantage on attacks against a prone creature that's more than 5 feet away. (phb 292)

You can always move between attacks. Or, push and then trip as a way to get the hell away from the target. It would do plenty of good! How can you look at this and say "it won't do much good" is beyond me haha.

Doing something more times isn't growing. You are still doing low level things. It wasn't acceptable for the 3e fighter (and other low tier classes) and it shouldn't be accetable here. See, that isn't a mid to high level feature though (doing something more times), even if it gets pawned off that way for martials. A character can have shield master at level 1, a character can replace extra attack with a shove or whatever. Doing more low level stuff doesn't make it mid to high level it just means you are doing more low level stuff.

In stead of giving casters spells of 3-9th level it would be like telling them "you can just cast low level spells more times" and somehow expecting players to be ok with casters not growing.

If grapple/shove upgraded to "Fling" (see Kraken) for the Barbarain and Fighter then we would be getting somewhere. There would be actual growth to what a PC can do.

Also, back on topic, Crawford says that you can't replace the bonus action with anything else and have the take only that bonus action which... Really just adds more fiddly to 5e than there needs to be. But I'm not surprised that he ruled in favor of restricting martials even when doing the oposite has no mechanical imbalances to the game, just makes martials a bit more tolerable.

[coalmaine]

You can always move between attacks. Or, push and then trip as a way to get the hell away from the target. It would do plenty of good! How can you look at this and say "it won't do much good" is beyond me haha.

Doing something more times isn't growing. You are still doing low level things. It wasn't acceptable for the 3e fighter (and other low tier classes) and it shouldn't be accetable here. See, that isn't a mid to high level feature though (doing something more times), even if it gets pawned off that way for martials. A character can have shield master at level 1, a character can replace extra attack with a shove or whatever. Doing more low level stuff doesn't make it mid to high level it just means you are doing more low level stuff.

In stead of giving casters spells of 3-9th level it would be like telling them "you can just cast low level spells more times" and somehow expecting players to be ok with casters not growing.

If grapple/shove upgraded to "Fling" (see Kraken) for the Barbarain and Fighter then we would be getting somewhere. There would be actual growth to what a PC can do.

Also, back on topic, Crawford says that you can't replace the bonus action with anything else and have the take only that bonus action which... Really just adds more fiddly to 5e than there needs to be. But I'm not surprised that he ruled in favor of restricting martials even when doing the oposite has no mechanical imbalances to the game, just makes martials a bit more tolerable.

Hi just wanted to make a quick point of order.
I don't believe the OPs question has an relation to or mention of the bonus action part of PAM.

With regard to the original question. It's a DM fiat but a fairly reasonable one to considering a push/knockdown attempt is no different than an attack as part of the attack action as far as the rules are concerned

[R.Shackleford]

It's been suggested this question take place here rather than the RAW thread. Any opinion is welcome. The question I have pertains to using a polearms reach (10ft) in a shove/knock prone attempt. The players handbook states that your target must be within reach and does not clarify precisely how one must physically attempt the maneuver. My question to you, would it be allowed in your campaign?


Hi just wanted to make a quick point of order.
I don't believe the OPs question has an relation to or mention of the bonus action part of PAM.

With regard to the original question. It's a DM fiat but a fairly reasonable one to considering a push/knockdown attempt is no different than an attack as part of the attack action as far as the rules are concerned

The OP doesn't actually mention using PAM at all, just a Polearm to perform a shove. There is no mention of the Reaction or Bonus Action part of PAM in the OP.

The BA and Reaction of PAM would pretty much work off the same ruling. You can't replace the Reaction/bonus action with anything other than the Reaction/bonus action that is given.

To make the rules less fiddly. Anytime you can replace an attack you make with something like a maneuver then you can replace any attack you make.

So, in the spirit of less fiddly, the Reaction OA and the Bonus Action can be replaced with a maneuver that could be used with a weapon. Shove would work with a weapon such as a polearm but not grapple unless you was catching the clothing of an enemy and pinning them to a solid object or ground.

Hell, I would say that normal OA can be replaced with a grapple. How iconic is it that people are running away and they get grabbed?

[Joe the Rat]

Can a battlemaster add his SD and a cantrip together? I don't know, that may could just be a houserule, but I could see an high elven battlemaster doing it in a story.If it's the BB or GFB cantrip, the consensus here is yes. The trip and shove BM maneuvers key off of hitting with a weapon attack. The BB/GFB include a weapon attack as part of the spellcasting. So a BM could hit someone, knock them down, and set him and a buddy on fire.
Now what I want to know is if standing up from prone counts as movement.


Hell, I would say that normal OA can be replaced with a grapple. How iconic is it that people are running away and they get grabbed?I had never considered that as a possibility - or using the trip/shove. It really ups the value of disengage, as not doing so risks not just the possibility of damage, but that you might not be able to move away at all.

[dickerson76]

...Now what I want to know is if standing up from prone counts as movement...
PHB pg 190 into 191: Standing up takes more effort; doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed.

EDIT: I do not think standing up counts as Moving for the purposes of triggering anything. It has a movement cost associated with it, but the section on being prone also says, "To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation." To me, that means that standing up does not count as moving.

[Erose]

Hi just wanted to make a quick point of order.
I don't believe the OPs question has an relation to or mention of the bonus action part of PAM.

With regard to the original question. It's a DM fiat but a fairly reasonable one to considering a push/knockdown attempt is no different than an attack as part of the attack action as far as the rules are concerned

I brought this up in the RAW thread, here's where it gets dicey. If one is in fact allowed to use the polearms 10ft range to shove/knock prone using the attack action, should the BA attack for 1d4 kick in? For instance, character chooses to use his attack action to knock a target prone from 10ft away and succeeds. Moves in 5ft to target to allow advantage on the BA attack. Perhaps the character then steps away from the prone target, allowing an OA from said target (with disadvantage). To me, that seems in balance as to how an Polearm Master would/could fight, keeping your opponent at bay.

[R.Shackleford]

I had never considered that as a possibility - or using the trip/shove. It really ups the value of disengage, as not doing so risks not just the possibility of damage, but that you might not be able to move away at all.

It actually makes OA with a Fighter or Barbarian worth it. With the current set up PAd are down right pathetic unless you are a Rogue (SA) or Paladin (Smite).

Letting people grapple, shove, or perform other maneuvers as an OA really opens up gameplay.

My DM had a dragon fly off to get away from the party... My Halfling Rogue used "climb onto a bigger creature" (as the OA) and stealth to ride the dragon back to its lair...

The caster used locate creature to find me while keeping up with the dragon.

[Joe the Rat]

That settles it. I'm going to present this to my players this weekend and see how it goes. And not just because there's a bunch of grapply-entangly monsters coming up.


EDIT: I do not think standing up counts as Moving for the purposes of triggering anything. It has a movement cost associated with it, but the section on being prone also says, "To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation." To me, that means that standing up does not count as moving.That's sensible.

[Mith]

The entire advantage of the Polearm is in the reach and (for halberds, etc.) the power from more arc. These same qualities also make it harder to control. Rather than having a tightly-controlled choke grip, one is trying to strike a body while a bad swing knocks the weapon against the ground and ceding ground. It makes perfect sense for the Polearm to have disadvantage.

Fair enough. I was looking at it being that if the reach weapon is 10 ft, then you would have Disadvantage with attacks made at 5 ft, since your target is within the arc of your swing. Therefore the best option for pole arm is to have your target 10 ft away at the end of you weapon.

[Hrugner]

This sounds like a case by case basis sort of thing. A player should be able to rely on it working within reason, but some monsters will be too hard to move with a weapon used while extended. If you have a hafted weapon with a hook of some sort, then a shove down should be fine, and you could move a small enough creature 5 feet by hitting it with most weapons. The shove and grapple maneuvers are presented as examples of maneuvers, they aren't the full list.

However, with the conversation around using bonus action attacks as maneuvers, that's currently the realm of feats. If you have a feat that allows a maneuver to be made as a bonus action, then permitting it through other bonus actions would make some sense. Giving a halberd wielder with both shield mastery and polearm mastery a bonus action to shove with the polearm wouldn't be too far out of reason. I'd also rule that you need some method of doing the maneuver as a bonus action in order to get it as a reaction as those two types of actions seem to be of about the same value. so a brawler could grab someone as they fled, and a shield master could trip them as they fled.

It may be cleaner to have individual feats for each type of maneuver being used as a different sort of action or with a different weapon, but this is a bit easier to remember and use I think.

[R.Shackleford]

It may be cleaner to have individual feats for each type of maneuver being used as a different sort of action or with a different weapon, but this is a bit easier to remember and use I think.

Fiddly rules it sounds like it.

Just make it a base rule for Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues that when they perform maneuvers they get added benefits due to their focused martial prowess.

[Safety Sword]

PHB pg 190 into 191: Standing up takes more effort; doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed.

EDIT: I do not think standing up counts as Moving for the purposes of triggering anything. It has a movement cost associated with it, but the section on being prone also says, "To move while prone, you must crawl or use magic such as teleportation." To me, that means that standing up does not count as moving.

You are totally correct, but that's a weird rule.

The faster you can move the more "move" it takes to stand up. I understand that you're still better off being faster, but it somehow seems odd to me.

[Rysto]

You are totally correct, but that's a weird rule.

The faster you can move the more "move" it takes to stand up. I understand that you're still better off being faster, but it somehow seems odd to me.

I think that the idea is that it takes the same amount of time to stand up no matter how fast your are. So if your movement speed is 30ft, then you move at 5ft/sec. If you're prone, though, it takes half of the round to stand (3 sec) and then you have only 3 sec left to move, or 15 ft.

[Hrugner]

Fiddly rules it sounds like it.

Just make it a base rule for Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues that when they perform maneuvers they get added benefits due to their focused martial prowess.

It dilutes the value of those feats though. Maybe something cleaner would be to add a line saying that the maneuver can now be made as a bonus action or a reaction replacing the old line that stated a sequence of events or a requirement for a type of object being available. So the first item in shield master would become

"You may take the shove action in place of an attack, bonus action attack or reaction. Also, when you take the attack action, you may also shove as a bonus action." That doesn't seem too fiddly.

[RickAllison]

I think that the idea is that it takes the same amount of time to stand up no matter how fast your are. So if your movement speed is 30ft, then you move at 5ft/sec. If you're prone, though, it takes half of the round to stand (3 sec) and then you have only 3 sec left to move, or 15 ft.

How does it interact with creatures with a high fly speed? Like the aarakocra would only take 10' or 15' while getting 35' or 40' flying. Dragons only lose 20' off an 80' fly speed.

Further, how does it work for those without a land speed like sharks--- oh wait, those guys are just flopping around anyway :smallbiggrin:

[Joe the Rat]

If you are using the "half your turn to stand up" concept, then it should use up half of all your movement modes. So a dragon would lose 20' of run and 40' of fly.

The lesson here being if you can fly, don't dismount your horse before takeoff.

[Safety Sword]

I think that the idea is that it takes the same amount of time to stand up no matter how fast your are. So if your movement speed is 30ft, then you move at 5ft/sec. If you're prone, though, it takes half of the round to stand (3 sec) and then you have only 3 sec left to move, or 15 ft.

Like I said, it makes sense, but players who are faster seem to think they are being penalised more for being faster.

Until you explain it in terms of what you have left after you stand, it does seem that way.

[Joe the Rat]

That settles it. I'm going to present this to my players this weekend and see how it goes. And not just because there's a bunch of grapply-entangly monsters coming up.

Following up on this, OA weapon-shove was interesting. The party was fighting a slide of mud mephits. The PAM glaive-user opted to use his OAs to slap them out of the air (shove-to-prone). They're slow enough that this kept them contained and away from the shooters.
(I may have shouted and leaped out of my chair when one of the PCs finally failed a Dex save)