Polearm Master Tweak

[mer.c]

Hey all! I'm a year or more behind on my GitP meta, so sorry if this is storied ground. But I was just wondering what people think about a quick, easy tweak to Polearm Master.

Replace the second bullet with:

"While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack using that weapon against a creature as it enters your reach with that weapon."

The difference here being that while the triggering circumstance is the same as that of an opportunity attack, it is not classed as an opportunity attack. So things that trigger only off of opportunity attacks, such as War Mage's cantrip cast and Sentinel's stop-right-there ability, would not trigger. You could also add, "This attack is not an attack of opportunity," to avoid confusion

As a player and DM, I love each individual feature in the reach/Sentinel/Polearm Master/War Mage+Booming Blade combo. But it can be excessively powerful. With this change, you get AFAIK pretty much all of the goodies associated with each feature per se without breaking the combo. Plus, you can still get full use of Booming Blade/Sentinel on your attacks of opportunity just fine.

If you really want to make sure PAM stays strong in conjunction with Sentinel/War Caster+Booming Blade, you could even keep them from competing for actions. Just make the reaction attack from PAM not consume your reaction, but limit it to once per round.

Thoughts? Opinions? Anything I'm overlooking rules- or effects-wise?

[Kryx]

"While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack using that weapon against a creature as it enters your reach with that weapon."
This is exactly the same as RAW:

"While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach."

opportunity attacks use your reaction. The only difference is "with that weapon", which you could add on to the RAW wording without using the more confusing wording you're suggesting.

[mer.c]

This is exactly the same as RAW:

"While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach."

opportunity attacks use your reaction. The only difference is "with that weapon", which you could add on to the RAW wording without using the more confusing wording you're suggesting.

I believe it wouldn't be the same thing, since there are some things that explicitly trigger only on opportunity attacks. All opportunity attacks use your reaction, but if something gives you the ability to make an attack made as a reaction under circumstance X, that is not inherently an opportunity attack (unless labeled as such, of course). That's my read, at least.

At any rate, if you had confusion, you could even just explicitly add the text "This attack is not an attack of opportunity."

Granted I should have made this explicit in my OP; I've added the following to the OP:

"The difference here being that while the triggering circumstance is the same as that of an opportunity attack, it is not classed as an opportunity attack. So things that trigger only off of opportunity attacks, such as War Mage's cantrip cast and Sentinel's stop-right-there ability, would not trigger."

[prototype00]

So you want to nerf it? (Tweak is somewhat misleading here, it's a straight nerf)

I mean, you're the DM, you can do what you want. If I was a player, I'd be displeased by the loss of awesomeness.

And if you are asking if this is in line with the rules, it completely isn't as RAW states that PAM provides an opportunity attack that must be a strike with the Polearm Weapon (which Booming Blade via Warcaster explicitly is).

[Lombra]

I think the biggest gripe with PAM is the bonus action attack, the OA upon enemy entering reach is very fitting and not problematic at all. It is the whole point of polearms to keep enemies at bay.

Does your tweak remove the bonus action attack?

[Arial Black]

The only tweak I have is that the benefits of this feat are only usable when the polearm is used two-handed. This is a deliberate change intended to eliminate the frankly ludicrous idea that wearing a shield on one arm and using a quarterstaff in one hand lets you use both ends of the quarterstaff as if you were using only the quarterstaff with both hands.

[suplee215]

The only tweak I have is that the benefits of this feat are only usable when the polearm is used two-handed. This is a deliberate change intended to eliminate the frankly ludicrous idea that wearing a shield on one arm and using a quarterstaff in one hand lets you use both ends of the quarterstaff as if you were using only the quarterstaff with both hands.

Is it insane to imagine hitting with the butt end of the quarter staff one handed? Just imagine it more like a pummel strike or punch.

[DanyBallon]

The only tweak I have is that the benefits of this feat are only usable when the polearm is used two-handed. This is a deliberate change intended to eliminate the frankly ludicrous idea that wearing a shield on one arm and using a quarterstaff in one hand lets you use both ends of the quarterstaff as if you were using only the quarterstaff with both hands.

Same as Arial Black, you get a bonus action only if the weapon is used two-handed, and also the bonus attack don't have reach.

[DanyBallon]

Is it insane to imagine hitting with the butt end of the quarter staff one handed? Just imagine it more like a pummel strike or punch.

If so, you should be allowing a bonus action with every weapons...

[mer.c]

I think the biggest gripe with PAM is the bonus action attack, the OA upon enemy entering reach is very fitting and not problematic at all. It is the whole point of polearms to keep enemies at bay.

Does your tweak remove the bonus action attack?

Hmm, I didn't know that the bonus attack was that contentious. Spending a feat for an attack that consumes your bonus action seems not out of line with what I'd expect, although the extra ability procs (like IDS) and/or the ability score modifier to the damage do seem like it would scale too well compared to other options. Or is it more the staff issue where Shield + Staff + PAM is too much better than Shield + Anything Else? Seems like that may be an issue with a lack of a similar option for other 1-handed + shield feats. (GWF: check; TWF: check; PAM: check; where's the not-staff-plus-shield feat?) Looking at a Paladin with Duelist + Staff + IDS + PAM does seem like it could easily outstrip the damage of GWF + GWM + Greatsword + IDS while also retaining a shield, which is... not good.

I can see making the bonus attack require a 2-handed grip and giving it a 5' reach. (I actually thought the 5' reach was RAW, but now see that it's not). Removing the ASM from the bonus attack damage might be an alternative. But the fact that you're still spending a feat and your bonus action on it needs to be considered, too.

Anyways, my reason for suggesting the change the PAM + Sentinel interaction was having seen a fair amount of concern that the combination can wildly imbalance encounters by completely neutering any melee-range enemy with a few good attack rolls. I don't see Sentinel's stopping power being an issue on standard AoOs, because at least they can get in range of the Sentinel and have a smaller radius that's effectively off-limits. I'm all for that; it's just the wider radius and can't-even-reach-the-sentinel-because-I'm-perpetually-locked-down that I foresee problems with.

Of course DMs can build around the combo, but that's not always the best solution - especially when you have a very new playgroup like mine, which doesn't have much experience with balancing combat encounters. So my hope was that in a later campaign, I could set it up so my PC and any others could get good use of both PAM and Sentinel without also being able to keep enemies completely incapable of action.

But if there's a compelling argument that the combination isn't that big of a deal - that most enemies/groups can get handle it, or that it can be easily built around, or that it's fine with the once-per-turn limit, or that the bonus attack is the real issue - I'm not wedded to my idea. That's why I brought it up here. :smallsmile:

Also, to be fair, a lot of the reaction I experienced was probably inflamed by the UA's Tunnel Fighter feat. shudder

[Kryx]

But if there's a compelling argument that the combination isn't that big of a deal - that most enemies/groups can get handle it, or that it can be easily built around, or that it's fine with the once-per-turn limit, or that the bonus attack is the real issue - I'm not wedded to my idea. That's why I brought it up here. :smallsmile:
I've never seen a player take it. It would require a huge investment of 2/5 (or 2/7 on a fighter) of the character's ASIs/Feats. By the time it would get rolling many of the enemies they face would have a natural reach of 10 feet or more so the combo is limited in effectiveness by that point.

The bonus action is the real contention. Many people don't allow it except when using a weapon in 2 hands. Totally reasonable imo.
I remove the bonus action attack as it steals TWF's niche of more attacks. I don't see "several attacks" as the niche of polearms.

[SharkForce]

Is it insane to imagine hitting with the butt end of the quarter staff one handed? Just imagine it more like a pummel strike or punch.

a quarterstaff was 6 to 9 feet long. and that's when we're talking about in the hands of medieval peasants, if we're scaling to standards for people who get much better nutrition, it's going to be even larger.

so... yes. it *is* insane to imagine using that one-handed and hitting someone with both ends with a significant amount of force and with little to no effort required.

it probably still isn't as much of a problem in terms of power gained as polearm mastery with a glaive and great weapon mastery, mind you. it's just more absurd.

[mer.c]

I've never seen a player take it. It would require a huge investment of 2/5 (or 2/7 on a fighter) of the character's ASIs/Feats. By the time it would get rolling many of the enemies they face would have a natural reach of 10 feet or more so the combo is limited in effectiveness by that point.

The bonus action is the real contention. Many people don't allow it except when using a weapon in 2 hands. Totally reasonable imo.
I remove the bonus action attack as it steals TWF's niche of more attacks. I don't see "several attacks" as the niche of polearms.

Great feedback, thanks! :smallsmile:

The TWF point is well taken. It already struggles compared to other styles, and this helps it gain purchase. Also good to hear (and explains a lot) about the power of monsters by the time you get the combo online. (Having only DMed LMoP and Princes, I don't have a good sense of enemy progression.)

What about making the bonus-action attack only work for staves, and only if wielded in 2 hands? Seems like it would rein in the imbalanced (and/or weird-feeling) elements, while still being a good talent and leaving open the (IMO) amusing niche of a non-Monk staff-wielding martial (or Shillelagh-wielding staff-master Druid).

Man, now I actually kind of want to roll those characters.

[Kryx]

What about making the bonus-action attack only work for staves, and only if wielded in 2 hands? Seems like it would rein in the imbalanced (and/or weird-feeling) elements, while still being a good talent and leaving open the (IMO) amusing niche of a non-Monk staff-wielding martial (or Shillelagh-wielding staff-master Druid).
On quarterstaffs and spears (many people add spears to the list) the bonus action attack is totally comparable to the flavor and power level of TWF. I would have no objection to it applying on those weapons. My issue is with it applying on Glaive/Halberd/Pike, but not everyone shares my opinion in this regard.

[Beelzebubba]

Is it insane to imagine hitting with the butt end of the quarter staff one handed? Just imagine it more like a pummel strike or punch.

Are we talking realism? It is insane to do it in the same round you've hit with the other end. There's no way to get that force behind it with a quarterstaff.

Shields and one-handed spears are definitely a thing, but that's only because you poke with one end, so the motion is only back and forth, and you use the shield edge to support the spear and vice versa. There's no way you can flip that around to use the other end.

Unless you say 'screw realism it's a game'. Like I do. And I look at it in terms of mechanical balance, fun, and 'would I freak out if the benefit from this was as much as a low level Wizard spell?' If the answer is 'no I can totally see a low level Wizard being this effective in doing a thing' I rule of cool it and let it happen. :smallamused:

[prototype00]

Are we talking realism? It is insane to do it in the same round you've hit with the other end. There's no way to get that force behind it with a quarterstaff.

Shields and one-handed spears are definitely a thing, but that's only because you poke with one end, so the motion is only back and forth, and you use the shield edge to support the spear and vice versa. There's no way you can flip that around to use the other end.

Unless you say 'screw realism it's a game'. Like I do. And I look at it in terms of mechanical balance, fun, and 'would I freak out if the benefit from this was as much as a low level Wizard spell?' If the answer is 'no I can totally see a low level Wizard being this effective in doing a thing' I rule of cool it and let it happen. :smallamused:

I mean, its a bo staff (which really is what a monk using a quarterstaff is using), but close enough for my suspension of disbelief! (as in I could imagine a conan-esque adventurer using this and a shield no problem)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5QmrllB7cQ

prototype00

[furby076]

Are we talking realism? It is insane to do it in the same round you've hit with the other end. There's no way to get that force behind it with a quarterstaff.

Shields and one-handed spears are definitely a thing, but that's only because you poke with one end, so the motion is only back and forth, and you use the shield edge to support the spear and vice versa. There's no way you can flip that around to use the other end.

Unless you say 'screw realism it's a game'. Like I do. And I look at it in terms of mechanical balance, fun, and 'would I freak out if the benefit from this was as much as a low level Wizard spell?' If the answer is 'no I can totally see a low level Wizard being this effective in doing a thing' I rule of cool it and let it happen. :smallamused:

Yes, absolutely I can see someone trained in a staff to wield it one handed. Then, they spend extraordinary training (feat) to learn how to attack even faster (2nd attack). "that force behind it..." - remember, the bonus attack is at reduced damage (d4, vs the weapons regular damage).

And, as the video showed below - i'm sure you can find tons of other youtube videos showing people wielding staves one handed. Weight is typically 4 lbs - not exactly crazy heavy for an adventurer.

But if you think wielding a quarterstaff one-handed and getting a bonus attack screws realism...then boy, you're in for a surprise when you hear about this thing called Magic, Dragons, Undead, etc.

Remember...you get this ability at the cost of the very high cost of a feat

[SharkForce]

Yes, absolutely I can see someone trained in a staff to wield it one handed. Then, they spend extraordinary training (feat) to learn how to attack even faster (2nd attack). "that force behind it..." - remember, the bonus attack is at reduced damage (d4, vs the weapons regular damage).

And, as the video showed below - i'm sure you can find tons of other youtube videos showing people wielding staves one handed. Weight is typically 4 lbs - not exactly crazy heavy for an adventurer.

But if you think wielding a quarterstaff one-handed and getting a bonus attack screws realism...then boy, you're in for a surprise when you hear about this thing called Magic, Dragons, Undead, etc.

Remember...you get this ability at the cost of the very high cost of a feat

so, uhhh... what do you do when your opponent is actually solid, and you can't just pass your quarterstaff through them?

[djreynolds]

I feel there are 3 groups of forum member when it comes to PAM

1. Who cares? If you want to use wisdom or charisma to guide your strikes and wield a shield and quarterstaff....... whatever

2. Some included spear into the mix

3. There is no one handed shenanigans, period. To benefit from PAM you are using these reach weapons with 2 hands, period.

Group 3 is driven crazy by quarterstaff and shield. We must remember in a world full of magic and dragons.... it is the little things the keep us grounded.

Just make sure "your" table agrees

[prototype00]

so, uhhh... what do you do when your opponent is actually solid, and you can't just pass your quarterstaff through them?

If I'm swinging it with the strength of Conan or the speed of Inshun, successor to the Hozo-in style, it usually isn't a problem.

prototype00

[Koren]

I think they aren't thinking of the full length staff with "quarterstaff" as it doesn't make sense with the versatile feature. Perhaps they had something more like an Escrima stick in mind.

[SharkForce]

I think they aren't thinking of the full length staff with "quarterstaff" as it doesn't make sense with the versatile feature. Perhaps they had something more like an Escrima stick in mind.

people used 6-9 foot spears one-handed. you might not use a quarterstaff one-handed in the same way you would use it two-handed, but frankly i consider it a lot more plausible than twirling it around like a baton against an actual enemy. also, i would argue that an escrima stick is a club.

[Beelzebubba]

And, as the video showed below - i'm sure you can find tons of other youtube videos showing people wielding staves one handed. Weight is typically 4 lbs - not exactly crazy heavy for an adventurer.

Spinning something around in mid-air is not combat. It's a form of dancing.

It took them several seconds to even get up to speed - how would that work against someone hacking away at the far ends with a sword? There's no leverage. Even at full speed, there is no lethal force behind it.

This is not quite full combat, but more like it. How could a one-handed staff compete here?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A980sz-RDm0

[Beelzebubba]

people used 6-9 foot spears one-handed. you might not use a quarterstaff one-handed in the same way you would use it two-handed, but frankly i consider it a lot more plausible than twirling it around like a baton against an actual enemy. also, i would argue that an escrima stick is a club.

Yeah, a spear was used to poke. The inertia of the pole behind a nice sharp point worked wonders.

It wouldn't do squat with a blunt end, though.

I could see Shillelagh working, though, if you hand-wave the damage to be magical and force, like a little 'thunder' attack that triggers at the end.

[SharkForce]

Yeah, a spear was used to poke. The inertia of the pole behind a nice sharp point worked wonders.

It wouldn't do squat with a blunt end, though.

I could see Shillelagh working, though, if you hand-wave the damage to be magical and force, like a little 'thunder' attack that triggers at the end.

i'm guessing you've never been jabbed with a quarterstaff. as deadly as a spear it may not be, but you're not going to get jabbed full force with a quarterstaff used like a spear and think "oh gee, that didn't do squat".

[Malifice]

This is exactly the same as RAW:

"While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach."

opportunity attacks use your reaction. The only difference is "with that weapon", which you could add on to the RAW wording without using the more confusing wording you're suggesting.

A [melee attack made as a reaction] is not the same thing as [an opportunity attack].

The latter allows the former, but they're different things. Readying an action to attack allows a melee attack as a reaction, as does the riposte manouver, but both are not opportunity attacks. Some feats also allow attacks as a reaction, but are not 'opportunity attacks'.

Polearm master expressly calls out its reaction attack as an opportunity attack. Removing that description (as the OP suggests) removes some weird interactions (PAM + Sentinel/ Warcaster) that really shouldnt be there in the first place.

I do just this in my own house rules; the reaction attack is not an 'attack of opportunity' (so no interactions with things that trigger off an attack of opportunity). I also require the polearm to be used in two hands to get the off hand 1d4 damage attack. I also open the feat up to spears, staves, pikes - anything that is a 'pole' arm.

[prototype00]

Spinning something around in mid-air is not combat. It's a form of dancing.

It took them several seconds to even get up to speed - how would that work against someone hacking away at the far ends with a sword? There's no leverage. Even at full speed, there is no lethal force behind it.

This is not quite full combat, but more like it. How could a one-handed staff compete here?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A980sz-RDm0

Look, maybe I'm not as much of a Society of Creative Anachronisms Guy as you, all I know is that DnD has tons of weapons in its history that shouldn't work as well as they should, Spiked Chains for one, Gnome Quick Razors for another, both of these are better, mechanically than swords, yet they don't have anything approaching leaverage/damage that a simple sword can put out.

If you are trying to argue against the mechanics, you fail, as the rules are on the side of the single handed staff (thats what versatile means!) and Polearm Master (otherwise Sage's Advice would have picked it up).

With the mechanics in place, I (possibly not you) just need a veneer of possibility to say how it might work (you ever watch Xena? How the heck would the Chakram be in any way a weapon of choice there, its even more illogical than a spinning staff! Now that's dancing around!). And with the youtube video I have that.

So thats how it stands, neither of us are probably going to budge on the visuals of the thing, but the rules as written (as they stand) are on my side, and the house-rules are yours to devise.

[mer.c]

Yeah personally I'm much more interested in balance implications than realism of staff combat.

Eating the bonus action to take the extra attack is a serious consideration. But it does feel like the extra strike plus ASM damage plus rider effects like IDS/Hex makes the damage worryingly high compared to the alternatives, even at the cost of a feat. Plus shield compatibility with staff or an extra GWM roll if going with a heavy polearm plus eating into the game-space of the already not stellar TWF style. Seems like a bit much to me.