PAM and shield - acceptable now?

[CheddarChampion]

So I see spear shield+dueling style+PAM recommended sometimes, is it not considered gimmicky like the quarterstaff combo was?
Was it the change in visuals (plate+shield+walking stick vs plate+shield+spear) that changed its PR?

[Marcloure]

Was it considered a gimmick with quarterstaff? For me it was always acceptable

[Man_Over_Game]

So I see spear shield+dueling style+PAM recommended sometimes, is it not considered gimmicky like the quarterstaff combo was?
Was it the change in visuals (plate+shield+walking stick vs plate+shield+spear) that changed its PR?

Kinda. Part of the problem was how the Bonus Action attack (with the bottom of the shaft) had no requirement to use both hands, and someone using a quarterstaff like that with one hand while wielding a shield just didn't make much sense.

It still doesn't make much sense with a Javelin, but people can say "Well, it looks cool, though".

I can't remember if it was JC or Mearls, but one of them said they'd intended the BA attack to require using the weapon with both hands, but it never made it into Errata.

[GlenSmash!]

I always felt PAM+Quarterstaff and shield was gimmicky, because it's very hard to swing a quarterstaff one handed, and it makes a poor thrusting weapon.

Spear does the latter much better. So it fits better in my mind even if they are mechanically the same.

In truth now that I'm comfortable with Spear+Shield PAM I let players Quarterstaff+Shield PAM just as much.

[stoutstien]

Was it considered a gimmick with quarterstaff? For me it was always acceptable
It was considered borderline due to how it stacks with duelist fighting style.
1d6+2+mod 1d4+2+mod and gain the benefits of a shield and a reaction attack that is easy to proc.
It's not really bad but can overshadow other players if you let it.

[Man_Over_Game]

It was considered borderline due to how it stacks with duelist fighting style.
1d6+2+mod 1d4+2+mod and gain the benefits of a shield and a reaction attack that is easy to proc.
It's not really bad but can overshadow other players if you let it.

Valid point. 1d6 + 2 + 1d4 + 2 is effectively the same as 1d10 + 1d8. Plus, you can throw the Javelin. It's strictly better than Two-Weapon Fighting (unless you consider the +1 AC from DW to compensate that much).

[KorvinStarmast]

It brings the spear back into the game as a strong weapon. I like it. I have a battle master who does that. He is not "all ownage all the time" but he does his share of hurting enemies.

[MadBear]

wait. What did I miss? When did using a spear for PAM become a thing?

[mephnick]

A couple years ago I changed PAM so that the BA attack can only be used if the weapon is able to be used in 2 hands at the time of the attack. I also added the spear to the list of weapons.

I just don't see the 1-handed PAM BA attack as a thematic fantasy goal. Spartans and the like are much better off taking Shield Master to mimic that archetype. PAM, in my mind, is to emulate the Halberd/Glaive/Spear experts like Lu Bu and Oberyn.

[Contrast]

wait. What did I miss? When did using a spear for PAM become a thing?

Check the errata (http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf).

[Mitsu]

It's legit RAW but I personally don't like it as DM. That bonus attack with end of shaft while holding a Spear or (ow God..) Q-Staff with one-hand just doesn't make any sense or it's just cheesy imo.

Each to his own table but I ruled you need two hands to be able to do bonus attack with end of shaft (which makes sense as this is how end of shaft was used with polearm weapons but only with 2 hands).

[stoutstien]

A couple years ago I changed PAM so that the BA attack can only be used if the weapon is able to be used in 2 hands at the time of the attack. I also added the spear to the list of weapons.

I just don't see the 1-handed PAM BA attack as a thematic fantasy goal. Spartans and the like are much better off taking Shield Master to mimic that archetype. PAM, in my mind, is to emulate the Halberd/Glaive/Spear experts like Lu Bu and Oberyn. I did the same thing. I even played with only allowing the ba attack if they missed with an attack with the attack action.

[LudicSavant]

So I see spear shield+dueling style+PAM recommended sometimes, is it not considered gimmicky like the quarterstaff combo was?
Was it the change in visuals (plate+shield+walking stick vs plate+shield+spear) that changed its PR?

I always found it acceptable. Gotta represent Palutena.

https://pm1.narvii.com/6203/660f09d324372958b1a62c426cda197808716c63_hq.jpg

[Guy Lombard-O]

Valid point. 1d6 + 2 + 1d4 + 2 is effectively the same as 1d10 + 1d8. Plus, you can throw the Javelin. It's strictly better than Two-Weapon Fighting (unless you consider the +1 AC from DW to compensate that much).

In all fairness, pretty much everything is already better than TWF.

Also, while this spear BA attack may be sort of cheesy, it does bring the spear back strong (which is cool, because otherwise it's pretty rare to see). But the spear/shield combo at least doesn't allow for additional GWM abuses. So it's probably not the most overpowering melee combo in the game.

[Crgaston]

It's legit RAW but I personally don't like it as DM. That bonus attack with end of shaft while holding a Spear or (ow God..) Q-Staff with one-hand just doesn't make any sense or it's just cheesy imo.

Each to his own table but I ruled you need two hands to be able to do bonus attack with end of shaft (which makes sense as this is how end of shaft was used with polearm weapons but only with 2 hands).


I think that the biggest problem is describing the BA attack as using the opposite end of the weapon. This just doesn't always make sense. If you instead think of it as a quick bash, jab or hook that is less-than-full power it makes more sense, but the designers chose to specify the opposite end. Meh.

[Lombra]

I just can't make it fit. I can't imagine it being plausible.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I just don't see the 1-handed PAM BA attack as a thematic fantasy goal. Spartans and the like are much better off taking Shield Master to mimic that archetype. PAM, in my mind, is to emulate the Halberd/Glaive/Spear experts like Lu Bu and Oberyn.

In another thread, somebody suggested fluffing the BA attack to be a sort of damaging shield bash (even going so far as to remove the attack bonuses if the spear's magical). I think that knocking an opponent's teeth in with the shield edge actually visualizes better with a damaging blow, rather than a shove/prone BA attack.

But of course, that's just my opinion and not "right" or "true" or "best" or anything.

[LudicSavant]

I think that the biggest problem is describing the BA attack as using the opposite end of the weapon. This just doesn't always make sense. If you instead think of it as a quick bash, jab or hook that is less-than-full power it makes more sense, but the designers chose to specify the opposite end. Meh.


In another thread, somebody suggested fluffing the BA attack to be a sort of damaging shield bash (even going so far as to remove the attack bonuses if the spear's magical). I think that knocking an opponent's teeth in with the shield edge actually visualizes better with a damaging blow, rather than a shove/prone BA attack.

But of course, that's just my opinion and not "right" or "true" or "best" or anything.

I have always handled it similarly. I have never seen any reason to require the attack to be described as using the back end of the weapon. The answer to bothersome fluff is to refluff! :smallsmile:

For that matter, I've always been in favor of refluffing weapons, too (as the PHB itself encourages). In the past I've let people refluff the quarterstaff as a tetsubo or a mace (yes, I know that the mace already exists, but you wouldn't know it based on how often it's taken by PCs :smalltongue:). Basically anything of the blunt instrument variety. The upshot of this is now sometimes Barbarians actually use war clubs. I'm cool with that.

[mephnick]

The answer to bothersome fluff is to refluff! :smallsmile:

It's also partially a mechanical fix, as PAM is generally quite good already and allowing the BA attack with a shield is a step too far IMO. If a Pally wants to BA smite at least he can be a bit vulnerable while doing it.

[stoutstien]

In all fairness, pretty much everything is already better than TWF.

Also, while this spear BA attack may be sort of cheesy, it does bring the spear back strong (which is cool, because otherwise it's pretty rare to see). But the spear/shield combo at least doesn't allow for additional GWM abuses. So it's probably not the most overpowering melee combo in the game.
It is Also better than sword and board, THF excluding GWM against low ac targets, and has equal or better defense than both those.

[Guy Lombard-O]

It is Also better than sword and board, THF excluding GWM against low ac targets, and has equal or better defense than both those.

Yeah, it's definitely strong. I probably wouldn't allow it in my game, if it wasn't already RAW per errata.

[LudicSavant]

It's also partially a mechanical fix, as PAM is generally quite good already and allowing the BA attack with a shield is a step too far IMO. If a Pally wants to BA smite at least he can be a bit vulnerable while doing it.

If you want to encourage styles other than PAM or Sharpshooter, I recommend ignoring the new Sage Advice for Shield Master and GWF. Worked for me; people now use both at my tables for certain situations / party comps.

TWF, on the other hand, is not quite as easily salvaged...

[sithlordnergal]

I've never had an issue with it, neither in game play or visualizing it. So the RAW didn't really change anything for me. Of course, I'm also the person who has no issue with a Druid wearing metal armor and ignoring the fluff on their description soooo...meh.

[Willie the Duck]

So I see spear shield+dueling style+PAM recommended sometimes, is it not considered gimmicky like the quarterstaff combo was?
Was it the change in visuals (plate+shield+walking stick vs plate+shield+spear) that changed its PR?

I deeply suspect that much of the problem with quarterstaff usage with the PAM and shield combo is
of course just picturing the thing.
that quarterstaves, while not inherently powerful, sure seem over-padded with benefits compared to anyone else's preferred weapon type (poor, poor mace likers :smallfrown:) once you consider all the nice fancy magical staffs and of course Shillelagh.
that it feels like it might have been an accidental confluence of things rather than a deliberate thing.


To the last one- it seems questionable whether the butt-end attack was ever supposed to be doable with a weapon wielded in one hand, and it isn't even clear why quarterstaves are consider one-handed, versatile weapons in the first place*. Yes, yes, I'm sure someone can explain how they would wield one one-handed, maybe even with a butt-end strike, but in a game system that doesn't include benefits for wielding maces and morning stars with two hands, it's a pretty strong outlier.
*Leading theory that I've heard (and am fairly convinced by): originally in the design process, you were not going to be able to cast spells while wielding a two-handed weapon (or certainly then not be able to make OAs afterwards, or something, having shifted weapon to one hand). Versatile longswords were to be the weapons of Eldritch Knights, and, to keep the concept of a quarterstaff-wielding wizard viable, staves needed to be versatile as well. When that design idea fell through, staves kept the versatile quality, even though it made a mess when combined with PAM.

So, even though PAM quarterstaff+shield is way down the list in terms of abuse--although, as mentioned, really makes two-weapon fighting and regular sword+board kinda obsolete, provided you can still find a magic weapon--it is still seen as vaguely cheap.

As to spear... I don't know, I guess spears just have better PR as a legitimate weapon of war that has rarely-to-never gotten a fair mechanical shake in D&D, so the equally hard-to-picture situation of shield and spear with butt-end strike is just an acceptable gimme.



If you want to encourage styles other than PAM or Sharpshooter, I recommend ignoring the new Sage Advice for Shield Master and GWF. Worked for me; people now use both at my tables for certain situations / party comps.

TWF, on the other hand, is not quite as easily salvaged...


It is exceedingly niche, but I think we found (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?581968-Weapon-amp-Feat-choice-for-a-Zealot-Barbarian)that TWF would be fairly good with an Zealot Barbarian

[Zhorn]

I always felt PAM+Quarterstaff and shield was gimmicky, because it's very hard to swing a quarterstaff one handed, and it makes a poor thrusting weapon.

Spear does the latter much better. So it fits better in my mind even if they are mechanically the same.

In truth now that I'm comfortable with Spear+Shield PAM I let players Quarterstaff+Shield PAM just as much.

The example given to me with a one-handed quarterstaff was my sister pointing out Gandalf in LoTR dual wielding his staff and longsword, and making quite a fair share of effective attacks with it. Seeing that in action makes it far easier to rationalize.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1rj0wBPSok&feature=youtu.be
Even before the errata I'd have let players use PAM with a spear. Just made sense.

[Mitsu]

The example given to me with a one-handed quarterstaff was my sister pointing out Gandalf in LoTR dual wielding his staff and longsword, and making quite a fair share of effective attacks with it. Seeing that in action makes it far easier to rationalize.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1rj0wBPSok&feature=youtu.be
Even before the errata I'd have let players use PAM with a spear. Just made sense.

I understand it's in the movie but believe me (as someone who trains HEMA) - those are in no way "effective attacks". Those are totally wasted moves, there is almost zero power and momentum behind those swings with staff and it's just gimmick. Try to equip a spear with shield (just take some long stick to one hand) and poke something 2 times with end and then answer yourself a question: do you want to poke using your fast pointy end for the 3rd time or will you now try to rotate whole stick around you somehow (in hand, above head, what ever) and try to hit your target with back end, which has no weight, no momentum and no force behind it?

Gandalf at least could say the he was powerful wizard and his staff was magical so there is that.

But in mundane scenario the whole PAM bonus attack with Spear + Shield is just stupid.

Of course each to his own table and it's RAW so perfectly legit. But let's not try to justify that using real-life examples because attack like that with one-hand is riddiculous.

[Blood of Gaea]

Another good way to fluff it is to describe it as bashing with the edge of your shield. It's much less clunky when imagined this way.

Honestly, even with most two-handed weapon striking with the rear end of the weapon is just silly. The only real exception to this is a poleaxe, which would be a refluffed greataxe if anything.

[LudicSavant]

It is exceedingly niche, but I think we found (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?581968-Weapon-amp-Feat-choice-for-a-Zealot-Barbarian)that TWF would be fairly good with an Zealot Barbarian

Mind pointing out the specific post #s in question where it's mathematically demonstrated that TWF keeps up? The OP just seems to be about Revenant Blade.

[stoutstien]

I understand it's in the movie but believe me (as someone who trains HEMA) - those are in no way "effective attacks". Those are totally wasted moves, there is almost zero power and momentum behind those swings with staff and it's just gimmick. Try to equip a spear with shield (just take some long stick to one hand) and poke something 2 times with end and then answer yourself a question: do you want to poke using your fast pointy end for the 3rd time or will you now try to rotate whole stick around you somehow (in hand, above head, what ever) and try to hit your target with back end, which has no weight, no momentum and no force behind it?

Gandalf at least could say the he was powerful wizard and his staff was magical so there is that.

But in mundane scenario the whole PAM bonus attack with Spear + Shield is just stupid.

Of course each to his own table and it's RAW so perfectly legit. But let's not try to justify that using real-life examples because attack like that with one-hand is riddiculous.
The only thing close I can think of is Zulu warriors iklwa short spear/sword. It's why I think the ba attack makes more sense to activate on a miss. I could see a person getting a blow deflected and just following through and sneak in a aft end strike. Unrealistic but could see it in a choreographed fight 😀

[Naanomi]

I’ve found that in most builds I am trying to utilize PAM for, I either want the two-handed Weapon for GWM; or I want the reach for Sentinel synergy. There are few builds I really want to invest in PAM but don’t want one one (or both) of those

[GlenSmash!]

The example given to me with a one-handed quarterstaff was my sister pointing out Gandalf in LoTR dual wielding his staff and longsword, and making quite a fair share of effective attacks with it. Seeing that in action makes it far easier to rationalize.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1rj0wBPSok&feature=youtu.be
Even before the errata I'd have let players use PAM with a spear. Just made sense.

Yep, I've seen the scene, but I know it's just more effective combat wise to put 2 hands on that longsword.

Too much HEMA strains the D&D sometimes. Though like I said I have come to terms with suspending my disbelief for the game (though never for that scene. Book Gandalf is too smart to hit someone with his arcane focus when he has a legendary longsword of the finest make).

[DanyBallon]

In order to make the other feats more appealing, I nerfed PAM and GWM long time ago, by saying that PAM BA needs to be done while holding with two hands, and that GWM can be only done with non reach weapons. And to favor the use of versatile weapon, I ruled that if you used a weapon two-handed, you can't have a free hand to cast a spell until your next turn.

These simple changes reduced the over representation of the PAM + GWM combo at my table. It led to a lager diversity of the feats taken by characters. Versatile weapons also made a come back in the hands of some martial oriented casters.

[Yunru]

Gandalf at least could say the he was powerful wizard and his staff was magical so there is that.

But in mundane scenario the whole PAM bonus attack with Spear + Shield is just stupid.

Why does it have to be mundane?
Why can't the fighter be magical in the same way the dragon's flight is, or any of the other "It's magical, but not magic" things in DnD?

[Willie the Duck]

Mind pointing out the specific post #s in question where it's mathematically demonstrated that TWF keeps up? The OP just seems to be about Revenant Blade.

I said nothing about mathematically demonstrated, I said we found that was fairly good (inherently a judgment call). However, the post in question that started the line of thinking was #5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23733455&postcount=5). It's not going to outperform the known big bads of the DPR world, but it seems competitive with most other character concepts (certainly this spear-PAM concept). Throw in the ability to capitalize on all the magic 'any one-handed melee weapons' that come your way (which the specialists are still waiting for the one and only +1 halberd or hand crossbow or whatever to show up in the campaign), and it's a reasonable choice (particularly if the party already has a GWM/PAM/Sent and XBE/SS build in it).


Yep, I've seen the scene, but I know it's just more effective combat wise to put 2 hands on that longsword.

Yep, that seems to be the one and only scene anyone always references (well, I think there's one other scene in the movie as well, but same character in same trilogy of movies).


Too much HEMA strains the D&D sometimes. Though like I said I have come to terms with suspending my disbelief for the game (though never for that scene. Book Gandalf is too smart to hit someone with his arcane focus when he has a legendary longsword of the finest make).

I think I've been consistent in saying that, since we don't know each other's credentials from a hill of beans on these forums, appeals to expertise knowledge is just an appeal to authority. Hopefully, said expertise lends itself to having a bunch of sources one could link to support one's case. Regardless, I think the idea that 'X isn't realistic' is a tricky thing to argue in D&D--it's not clear that realism is the point. D&D started out with a lot more combat realism, at least in terms of weapon-armor interactions (leaving studded leather and the like out of the discussion), and has been steadily moving away from that model. Genre emulation seems to be the driving goal. As old as it makes me feel, cinematic LotR is an old, venerable, established fantasy genre piece (it is fast approaching the distance-from-now that the LotR novels were when Chainmail was published). If someone wants to play 'Gandalf, sword and quarterstaff wielding martial wizard,' it's kind of cherry-picking to decry the unrealism in the middle of our elf and dragon game. I still don't like it, and think it was an accidental rules interaction that was not intended. I don't have players trying to do it, but if I did, I'd be prepared to be convinced in either direction on whether to allow it.

[Sception]

Aesthetically, I'm not a fan of PAM at all. You don't fight with both sides of a polearm, and non-reach weapons like quarterstaffs shouldnt be getting a reaction attack for entering their threat range.

I dont mess with the feat in my games, it doesnt bother me enough to house rule, but if it did I'd split it into two different feats, one granting spears and quarterstaffs the bonus action attack and one point of shield AC, but both benefits would only apply when wielded the weapon two handed. The other would grant halberds, glaives, and pikes the reaction attack when entering their threat range, along with some other bonus. A good secondary benefit isn't springing to mind, so maybe just +1 strength?

[Willie the Duck]

Aesthetically, I'm not a fan of PAM at all. You don't fight with both sides of a polearm, and non-reach weapons like quarterstaffs shouldnt be getting a reaction attack for entering their threat range.

Well, you certainly didn't fight with both ends of a polearm if it was a weapon of great reach (certainly if you were holding it in a reach-granting manner). Taking my own advice, here's a book (http://www.myarmoury.com/books/item.1581606443.html) (as well as a more readily available, albeit less corroborated source (https://www.quora.com/Were-there-halberds-or-pole-weapons-with-blades-or-points-on-each-end-of-the-shaft-Such-as-a-quarterstaff-with-blades-at-each-end)) which point out that, particularly outside using polearms in formation warfare, polearms did sometimes have butt-end spikes or hooks, and use of the back end was described in certain historic pole-arm fighting treatises. I highly suspect that this is the inspiration for the late 3e feat which inspired this part of the PAM feat in the first place. Historically, it looks niche at best, but I do get how it got into the game in the first place.

Regardless, I agree. You can't hold a long weapon such that you can get their maximum reach (or whatever the reaction attack when they enter your threat range is supposed to represent) out of 'em at the same time you capitalize on their other end.

[GlenSmash!]

IYep, that seems to be the one and only scene anyone always references (well, I think there's one other scene in the movie as well, but same character in same trilogy of movies).



I think I've been consistent in saying that, since we don't know each other's credentials from a hill of beans on these forums, appeals to expertise knowledge is just an appeal to authority. Hopefully, said expertise lends itself to having a bunch of sources one could link to support one's case. Regardless, I think the idea that 'X isn't realistic' is a tricky thing to argue in D&D--it's not clear that realism is the point. D&D started out with a lot more combat realism, at least in terms of weapon-armor interactions (leaving studded leather and the like out of the discussion), and has been steadily moving away from that model. Genre emulation seems to be the driving goal. As old as it makes me feel, cinematic LotR is an old, venerable, established fantasy genre piece (it is fast approaching the distance-from-now that the LotR novels were when Chainmail was published). If someone wants to play 'Gandalf, sword and quarterstaff wielding martial wizard,' it's kind of cherry-picking to decry the unrealism in the middle of our elf and dragon game. I still don't like it, and think it was an accidental rules interaction that was not intended. I don't have players trying to do it, but if I did, I'd be prepared to be convinced in either direction on whether to allow it.

Indeed. I won't play a guy one-handing quarterstaff because it doesn't satisfy me for the reasons I specify but I would never think that it shouldn't be an option in the game "because realism".

I don't play full spellcasters either, because I'd rather play Conan that Raistlin. But I wouldn't cut spellcasters from the game for my tastes.

[Pex]

Indeed. I won't play a guy one-handing quarterstaff because it doesn't satisfy me for the reasons I specify but I would never think that it shouldn't be an option in the game "because realism".

I don't play full spellcasters either, because I'd rather play Conan that Raistlin. But I wouldn't cut spellcasters from the game for my tastes.

Not banning something simply because you don't like it personally is verboten around here. Custom is if you don't like something then no one in your game is allowed to use it. You'll have to turn in your DM license.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yep, I've seen the scene, but I know it's just more effective combat wise to put 2 hands on that longsword.

Too much HEMA strains the D&D sometimes. Though like I said I have come to terms with suspending my disbelief for the game (though never for that scene. Book Gandalf is too smart to hit someone with his arcane focus when he has a legendary longsword of the finest make).

A post on our Real-World Questions thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23597624&postcount=359)indicates that Miyamoto Musashi (most famous Japanese swordsmen) recommends one handed-fighting for dispatching an easy target, two hands if you need to focus, and using a sidearm when outnumbered.

So it looks like there's some real-world applications for using a large weapon in one hand, or using two weapons at once, but whether or not you're dealing with archers or street fights really makes a big difference.

[Skylivedk]

I'd prefer if they'd given another bullet, something more control oriented or an ability to brace against large creatures/extra damage against anyone moving ten feet in a straight line before entering reach. The BA stuff is tap dancing on TWF.

[GlenSmash!]

Not banning something simply because you don't like it personally is verboten around here. Custom is if you don't like something then no one in your game is allowed to use it. You'll have to turn in your DM license.

Here you go, sir. I will try to be less understanding in the future.


A post on our Real-World Questions thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23597624&postcount=359)indicates that Miyamoto Musashi (most famous Japanese swordsmen) recommends one handed-fighting for dispatching an easy target, two hands if you need to focus, and using a sidearm when outnumbered.

So it looks like there's some real-world applications for using a large weapon in one hand, or using two weapons at once, but whether or not you're dealing with archers or street fights really makes a big difference.

Good point. And obviously Gandalf would want to keep carrying his staff with him as he fought. I just don't understand whacking people with that staff when one of the Best Melee Weapons in the entire world is in your other hand.

[Crgaston]

Yep, that seems to be the one and only scene anyone always references (well, I think there's one other scene in the movie as well, but same character in same trilogy of movies).



There's also this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8dII-NmjpA

[stoutstien]

All in all, as long as the one hand Pam player isn't overshadowing other players at the same table there isn't a problem with it.

[Man_Over_Game]

All in all, as long as the one hand Pam player isn't overshadowing other players at the same table there isn't a problem with it.
I guess the question is, what defines "overshadow"?

If a character is mechanically superior, but the players don't say its a problem, is it still a problem?

Some would say that there is no crime if there is no victim.

Others would say that a toxic water line is a problem even if people don't realize it.

I'd be interested to see where people sit on this topic.

[stoutstien]

I guess the question is, what defines "overshadow"?

If a character is mechanically superior, but the players don't say its a problem, is it still a problem?

Some would say that there is no crime if there is no victim.

Others would say that a toxic water line is a problem even if people don't realize it.

I'd be interested to see where people sit on this topic.
Good question. 5e has done a good job of bringing all the classes within a tight range but a few concerns can arises. Such as short rest classes getting a recharge after every fight.
I think if V human is involved the water is even more murky.
A half orc berserker is going to feel pretty meh if that V human zelot is basically getting most of bonus of their subclass even out of rage. (Ba attack and reaction attack).

[Man_Over_Game]

Good question. 5e has done a good job of bringing all the classes within a tight range but a few concerns can arises. Such as short rest classes getting a recharge after every fight.
I think if V human is involved the water is even more murky.
A half orc berserker is going to feel pretty meh if that V human zelot is basically getting most of bonus of their subclass even out of rage. (Ba attack and reaction attack).

That's a pretty valid point.

PAM + Sentinel + Mobile

Or Swashbuckler, Berserker, Cavalier, with 20 AC, as a level 6 VHuman Fighter.

[stoutstien]

That's a pretty valid point.

PAM + Sentinel + Mobile

Or Swashbuckler, Berserker, Cavalier, with 20 AC, as a level 6 VHuman Fighter.
I'm working on turning all the "combat " feats into half feats. I think it would make them more balanced

[Mitsu]

All in all, as long as the one hand Pam player isn't overshadowing other players at the same table there isn't a problem with it.

The point is: it does overshadow other options and other melee players at table.

When we consider a Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian that want to play Shield and Sword build and is not interested in picking up GWM- the PAM with one-handed spear or staff is superior due to having extra attack, which also means extra crit chance. It's always better as mundane fighter usually is supported in some way by party casters, while gish fighters like Paladins get IDS to support bonus attack of PAM.

Hell, by RAW and Crowford tweet PAM is right now a better Shield Master. Because you can scarefice as per rules on of your attacks for Shove attempt and then with PAM you have two attack (one left attack + Bonus action PAM attack) on prone target if successfull. Which is way better than all attacks-> shield bash per Shield Master Sage Advice RAI.

Bah, even if we talk GWM build the PAM build overshadow non-PAM build. Extra attack with +10 is again: extra damage, extra crit chance, extra attack to attach magical effects like: weapon enchantment, weapon buffs like Holy Weapon, Improved Divine Smites etc.

That is why I don't allow one-handed PAM because PAM is already superior option to GWM builds and one-handed PAM is also better and even better than Sage Advice Shield Master.

Vengeance Paladin build for one-handed PAM with Haste and Improved IDS is perfect example how one-handed PAM is broken.

I can myself say that when I was paying a campaign- I myself told DM I want to change my PAM feat to something else, because I thought it was broken when used with Shield (I was Conquest Paladin). He agreed that it was cheesy for him, but he didn't say anything because it was RAW.

[stoutstien]

The point is: it does overshadow other options and other melee players at table.

When we consider a Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian that want to play Shield and Sword build and is not interested in picking up GWM- the PAM with one-handed spear or staff is superior due to having extra attack, which also means extra crit chance. It's always better as mundane fighter usually is supported in some way by party casters, while gish fighters like Paladins get IDS to support bonus attack of PAM.

Hell, by RAW and Crowford tweet PAM is right now a better Shield Master. Because you can scarefice as per rules on of your attacks for Shove attempt and then with PAM you have two attack (one left attack + Bonus action PAM attack) on prone target if successfull. Which is way better than all attacks-> shield bash per Shield Master Sage Advice RAI.

Bah, even if we talk GWM build the PAM build overshadow non-PAM build. Extra attack with +10 is again: extra damage, extra crit chance, extra attack to attach magical effects like: weapon enchantment, weapon buffs like Holy Weapon, Improved Divine Smites etc.

That is why I don't allow one-handed PAM because PAM is already superior option to GWM builds and one-handed PAM is also better and even better than Sage Advice Shield Master.

Vengeance Paladin build for one-handed PAM with Haste and Improved IDS is perfect example how one-handed PAM is broken.

I can myself say that when I was paying a campaign- I myself told DM I want to change my PAM feat to something else, because I thought it was broken when used with Shield (I was Conquest Paladin). He agreed that it was cheesy for him, but he didn't say anything because it was RAW.


It is strange they didn't ettra PAM ba attack to be two hand only same time they added Spears.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I had a hard time visualizing the bonus attack using a one handed staff (or spear). But then I remembered all those Jackie Chan fight scenes, and the light bulb switched on. Yeah, it's like that.

[djreynolds]

Doesn't Brad Pitt do this Troy? When he fights Eric Bana?

IMO, if you don't agree with the BA of PAM, you could allow it only versus another adjacent enemy.

[Mitsu]

Doesn't Brad Pitt do this Troy? When he fights Eric Bana?

IMO, if you don't agree with the BA of PAM, you could allow it only versus another adjacent enemy.

I agree with bonus attack on PAM but only when using two hands as this is actually how fighting with 2-handed polearm looks like. Especially with Halberds, Glaives or Poleaxes.

Brad Pitt does jumping stabs there, dances and keeps his shield on his back 90% of time which ask question why does he even use shield. Look at every scene where you see him rotate spear to do some fancy hit or round-hit and see that he would be better each time to just do one or two more straight stabs, not opening himself.

Again, It's movie, and DnD is fiction fantasy. But there some things I think are not only cheesy but also broken on mechanical level. And that is 1 handed PAM imo.