Polearm Mastery and Dual Wielding

[ATHATH]

If I have the Polearm Mastery feat and am wielding a quarterstaff in one hand and, say, a dagger in the other, can I choose to attack enemies that provoke an OA from the Polearm Mastery feat with the dagger instead of the quarterstaff (which, as a reminder, does not have the Reach quality)?

This tweet says that this interaction wasn't intended, but doesn't seem to actually say that this doesn't work: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/580139521498480640

Have there been any clarifications since that tweet was made? How do you rule it in your games? Would this typically fly in AL play?

[Ganymede]

Take a closer look at the tweet. He didn't just describe the intent, he also subtly insulted the tweeter for suggesting the opposite was possible.

It was savage, but he could have been nicer about it.

[ATHATH]

Take a closer look at the tweet. He didn't just describe the intent, he also subtly insulted the tweeter for suggesting the opposite was possible.

It was savage, but he could have been nicer about it.
Eh, I don't really see it. I mean, I sort of see it, but that being an insult and/or savage seems like a stretch.

[Ganymede]

I did a Chris Tucker style "Daaaaaaamn" when I read it.

[Belier]

Take a closer look at the tweet. He didn't just describe the intent, he also subtly insulted the tweeter for suggesting the opposite was possible.

It was savage, but he could have been nicer about it.

It must be too subtle because I cannot see it.

[MeeposFire]

Yea not seeing it from a neutral position. I can see someone thinking it but only if they wanted to see that but that does not really say much, because if you want to be offended you will find a way (or in some cases if you want to see someone be insulted whether to be offended for them or for fun you can make yourself see it even if there was none there).

[Ganymede]

Yea not seeing it from a neutral position. I can see someone thinking it but only if they wanted to see that

Dude, ease off. This thread is not about me and there is no need for you to stroll up and brew a confrontation out of nothing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Take a closer look at the tweet. He didn't just describe the intent, he also subtly insulted the tweeter for suggesting the opposite was possible.

It was savage, but he could have been nicer about it.

I'm of the thought that this was simply a misunderstanding. The tweet in question was asking about War Caster's interaction with reach based AoO, JC seems to have misread or misinterpreted the question and answered off base, it seems likely that he didn't notice the mention of War Caster or didn't remember War Caster's AoO feature. You're seeing a burn that isn't there.

to OP: the tweet you linked isn't actually in reference to Polearm Master at all, so drawing a conclusion from it isn't going to help you. PAM simply says that creatures entering your reach will provoke an attack of opportunity while you're wielding a quarterstaff. If you happen to be Dual Wielding two 5ft range weapons, either could be made to attack with it.

[Ganymede]

I'm of the thought that this was simply a misunderstanding. ... You're seeing a burn that isn't there.

I assume he was just tired or was thinking about some other question he was asked.

[MeeposFire]

Dude, ease off. This thread is not about me and there is no need for you to stroll up and brew a confrontation out of nothing.

OK I was not really desiring a confrontation in this thread so in order to facilitate I assume our mutual desire to not have one I am sorry for insulting you.

[MeeposFire]

I'm of the thought that this was simply a misunderstanding. The tweet in question was asking about War Caster's interaction with reach based AoO, JC seems to have misread or misinterpreted the question and answered off base, it seems likely that he didn't notice the mention of War Caster or didn't remember War Caster's AoO feature. You're seeing a burn that isn't there.

to OP: the tweet you linked isn't actually in reference to Polearm Master at all, so drawing a conclusion from it isn't going to help you. PAM simply says that creatures entering your reach will provoke an attack of opportunity while you're wielding a quarterstaff. If you happen to be Dual Wielding two 5ft range weapons, either could be made to attack with it.

I believe there is another ruling which also involved warcaster oddly where Crawford reiterated that any opportunity attack that was granted only due to the use of polearm master had to be done with a polearm. In that tweet the question involved at the time prevented the use of warcaster with that aspect of PAM because at the time there were no spells that attacked with a polearm which meant that you could not use any PAM related opportunity attacks with a spell. Later with the advent of booming blade you could make a cantrip that used a polearm so now warcaster could work with PAM.

Granted Crawford's ruing essentially is based on the idea that the need for a polearm is implicit in the use of the feat's features in every way. If you do not operate with that assumption then the feat would not necessarily need to have the polearm used in the opportunity attack.

Though I would ask why would you want to use the dagger instead of the staff? The only thing I can think of is if you are a rogue and want to get sneak attack damage.

[Fuzzy Logic]

OK I was not really desiring a confrontation in this thread so in order to facilitate I assume our mutual desire to not have one I am sorry for insulting you.

And that right there is why gitp is the only forum I bother with.

[Ganymede]

OK I was not really desiring a confrontation in this thread so in order to facilitate I assume our mutual desire to not have one I am sorry for insulting you.

It is really no problem.

[ATHATH]

Though I would ask why would you want to use the dagger instead of the staff? The only thing I can think of is if you are a rogue and want to get sneak attack damage.
Bingo.

Of course, I'm not gonna actually use a dagger- I'll use a shortsword instead.

So how about dual wielding a whip and a quarterstaff and getting an opportunity attack with the whip when someone enters the whip's (not the quarterstaff's) reach? By the same argument, this should work as well (and I've seen it suggested elsewhere), but I just wanted to check if it would fly about as often as the dagger+quarterstaff ruling would/does.

[MeeposFire]

Bingo.

Of course, I'm not gonna actually use a dagger- I'll use a shortsword instead.

So how about dual wielding a whip and a quarterstaff and getting an opportunity attack with the whip when someone enters the whip's (not the quarterstaff's) reach? By the same argument, this should work as well (and I've seen it suggested elsewhere), but I just wanted to check if it would fly about as often as the dagger+quarterstaff ruling would/does.

As I recall no it does not work (assuming you are using the Crawford ruling of intent). If I am not misremembering (due to being very late where I live) opportunity attacks are granted when leaving your reach not when entering unless you use PAM. Since in your example we are talking about an opportunity attack granted only due to PAM and the ruling saying that opportunity attacks that would be granted due to PAM must be used with PAM related weapons that would make it not work.

Now if you are playing with a DM that does not buy into the Crawford ruling then yes it would work. I would also mention there might be some who might not agree with Crawford but may not like what you are doing here by finding it to be a bit exploitative. You are not planning on ever attacking with that staff and only keep it around to be able to use the feat's bonuses. I just figure that is something you may want to check about with whomever is your DM (along with whether they will choose to follow the Crawford ruling or not).

[Exocist]

Bingo.

Of course, I'm not gonna actually use a dagger- I'll use a shortsword instead.

So how about dual wielding a whip and a quarterstaff and getting an opportunity attack with the whip when someone enters the whip's (not the quarterstaff's) reach? By the same argument, this should work as well (and I've seen it suggested elsewhere), but I just wanted to check if it would fly about as often as the dagger+quarterstaff ruling would/does.

That shouldn't work. While wielding Reach + Non-Reach weapon (If you're wielding a reach weapon, you always have a non-reach weapon - unarmed strikes) you actually have 2 separate threatened areas - one with the reach weapon and one with the non-reach weapon. People entering the Whip's threatened area but NOT the quarterstaff's threatened area would not provoke an AoO from PAM. However, this also means that people who leave the Quarterstaff's threatened area but NOT the whip's threatened area (I.e. they move from 5ft away to 10ft away) would still provoke an AoO from the quarterstaff.

[JoeJ]

Logically, how does it make sense that you can make an OA with a dagger if you're holding a quarterstaff in your other hand, but not if your other hand is empty? The only reasonable interpretation IMO is that the OA from this feat has to be made with the quarterstaff.

[ATHATH]

That shouldn't work. While wielding Reach + Non-Reach weapon (If you're wielding a reach weapon, you always have a non-reach weapon - unarmed strikes) you actually have 2 separate threatened areas - one with the reach weapon and one with the non-reach weapon. People entering the Whip's threatened area but NOT the quarterstaff's threatened area would not provoke an AoO from PAM. However, this also means that people who leave the Quarterstaff's threatened area but NOT the whip's threatened area (I.e. they move from 5ft away to 10ft away) would still provoke an AoO from the quarterstaff.
Do you have a rules citation for this?

[ATHATH]

Logically, how does it make sense that you can make an OA with a dagger if you're holding a quarterstaff in your other hand, but not if your other hand is empty? The only reasonable interpretation IMO is that the OA from this feat has to be made with the quarterstaff.
Well, the idea is that I'm using the quarterstaff as a support/for acrobatics/for vaulting. Like pole dancing, but less stripping and more stabbing.

[Exocist]

Do you have a rules citation for this?

It's separate sage advices but:

- Article One (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/355903563299430401) - You can only AoO with a Reach weapon when they exit the reach you have with that weapon. I mean this is obvious, but it means that you can't, for instance, have 2 weapons with different reach (Say a Dagger and a Whip) and AoO with the Whip when they leave your Dagger reach or vice versa.
- Articles Two and Three (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/22/what-if-im-dual-wielding-a-dagger-and-a-whip/)
- "If you want to make an opportunity attack with X, the attack is triggered when a foe leaves the reach of X. X = weapon you want to use" - Implies separate threatened areas for both the Dagger + Whip
- "Unless a feature tells you otherwise, you have a 5 ft. reach with your unarmed strikes, and you can make opportunity attacks with them." - You can AoO with unarmed strikes. This means when you're using two hands on a reach weapon (say a Halberd or Glaive) you still get an AoO when they move from 5ft to 10ft, but it MUST be with the unarmed strike (if you want to make the AoO then).

For measure, there's also this


While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.

If we have two separate reaches (with the Whip and Quarterstaff), they'll only provoke the AoO when they enter the reach you have with the quarterstaff.

Which leads to Article 4 (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/580139521498480640), which you quoted in the OP, saying that the designer intent was that you OA with the Quarterstaff when they enter your Quarterstaff reach.

Now you COULD also take War Caster and use a Blade Cantrip (Booming Blade/Green-Flame Blade) in place of the OA make an attack with your Dagger/Shortsword instead of the Quarterstaff, nothing is stopping you from doing that.