Pole Arm Master Clarification

[Pex]

For the first time I'm considering taking Pole Arm Master for a character, and I need clarification. Suppose I wield a glaive and attack an opponent 10 ft away as that's the reach. If that opponent moves 5 ft closer to attack me does that count as entering my reach to provoke the opportunity attack or is entering my reach at the 10 ft mark so this opponent doesn't provoke because he's already at 10 ft away?

[Shuruke]

I believe that it os once they enter the 10ft reach
After that their in ypur reach even of they move closer because ots still within reach

[Kadesh]

Yes, it triggers when you go into 5ft, because of your unarmed strike's 5ft reach. You can use any weapon you wish when you make the opportunity attack, be it unarmed or your Reach Polearm.

[stoutstien]

For the first time I'm considering taking Pole Arm Master for a character, and I need clarification. Suppose I wield a glaive and attack an opponent 10 ft away as that's the reach. If that opponent moves 5 ft closer to attack me does that count as entering my reach to provoke the opportunity attack or is entering my reach at the 10 ft mark so this opponent doesn't provoke because he's already at 10 ft away?ask your DM.

[bid]

Yes, it triggers when you go into 5ft, because of your unarmed strike's 5ft reach. You can use any weapon you wish when you make the opportunity attack, be it unarmed or your Reach Polearm.
Eat your cake and have it.

[jh12]

Yes, it triggers when you go into 5ft, because of your unarmed strike's 5ft reach. You can use any weapon you wish when you make the opportunity attack, be it unarmed or your Reach Polearm.

What allows you to make an opportunity attack when a creature enters your unarmed strike's reach? The PAM feat says that you can make an opportunity attack if you are wielding a specified polearm and a creature enters "the reach you have with that weapon."

[djreynolds]

I believe since it's a reaction attack that it interrupts their movement.

They may be at 10ft, and decide to move into attack, so right then and there you would settle your reaction attack... in this case before they actually move.

They were just thinking of moving, tensed up, and you spike them

[AHF]

What allows you to make an opportunity attack when a creature enters your unarmed strike's reach? The PAM feat says that you can make an opportunity attack if you are wielding a specified polearm and a creature enters "the reach you have with that weapon."

That is my reading too. Otherwise, you could use it in consecutive turns without the target ever leaving your reach. (Example: Enemy attacks your comrade 8 feet away. When the enemy gets within 10 feet, you use the attack since it enters your reach. The next round that same enemy closes the remaining distance to attack you and now you use it again for a second time on the same target without the enemy ever leaving your reach since it entered your unarmed reach.)

In my games, it is only usable when the enemy first enters your reach and unable to be used again unless it leaves your polearm reach.

[Tanarii]

What allows you to make an opportunity attack when a creature enters your unarmed strike's reach? The PAM feat says that you can make an opportunity attack if you are wielding a specified polearm and a creature enters "the reach you have with that weapon."
Nothing.

Unarmed attacks allow you to take an unarmed OA when a creature leaves your 5ft reach when using a Reach polearm. But it doesnt do anything for PAM.

[Keravath]

I think as most have clarified.

If you are wielding a polearm - glaive, halberd, pike, spear or quarterstaff - when a creature first enters your reach you can use a reaction to take an opportunity attack. For glaive, halberd, and pike the reach is 10'. So when the target moves to within 10' it will trigger the PAM op attack but not if they later move to 5'.

Any further movement on any turn that remains within your reach will NOT trigger any op attacks, either regular or from PAM. A normal op attack will be triggered only when a creature leaves your reach.

Note that taking an unarmed strike may actually require you to be unarmed. "When you are unarmed you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike" though I'm sure folks can argue it.

[Pex]

DM agrees. No opportunity attack from 10 ft to 5 ft. That's fine by me. Thanks.

[Kadesh]

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

This is the rules. The rules are not worded to make a difference between multiple reach rules. Are they entering your 5ft reach? Yes. Are you wielding one of the above weapons? Yes.

You have reached the required triggers.

[MThurston]

Once an opponant is within your reach, as long as they do not leave it, they do not give an attack of opportunity.

Within 5ft, so when an enemy engages a target they give up an unarmed attack to the defender?

Seems silly.

So every time someone moves to attack someone with a 5ft reach weapon, they give up an unarmed strike.

I have been playing 5e wrong for years.

[Arial Black]

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

This is the rules. The rules are not worded to make a difference between multiple reach rules. Are they entering your 5ft reach? Yes. Are you wielding one of the above weapons? Yes.

You have reached the required triggers.

"Your reach". Not "the reach of one of your weapons".

A 5e PC does not have several different simultaneous reaches. A 5e PC has a single reach, which is usually 5 feet. If you wield a reach weapon, it is not that you now have a 5 foot reach AND a 10 foot reach! No, you now have a single reach of 10 feet.

The wording of the Reach weapon property, PHB p147:-

"Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to YOUR reach when you attack with it."

[AHF]

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

This is the rules. The rules are not worded to make a difference between multiple reach rules. Are they entering your 5ft reach? Yes. Are you wielding one of the above weapons? Yes.

You have reached the required triggers.

You ignored or conveniently left out the following important text:

“While you are wielding a pike...”

And

“Creatures provoke an attack of opportunity when they enter THE REACH YOU HAVE WITH THAT WEAPON.” (All caps added)

As Ariel Black notes, reach with the weapon is a defined and static term.

So a condition for using the AOO from PAM is wielding the weapon and it expressly ties out to the reach of the weapon.

So either you forgot the wording of the feat or this is some deliberate misreading to try to permit some big league cheese. I’ll choose to believe the former.

[CorporateSlave]

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

This is the rules. The rules are not worded to make a difference between multiple reach rules. Are they entering your 5ft reach? Yes. Are you wielding one of the above weapons? Yes.

You have reached the required triggers.

Well, by RAW I suppose that is correct. However, I find it hard to argue that RAW matches up with RAI in this case, and as a DM I would rule against it.

One of the benefits for PAM are listed above. However, the RAW description for PAM also states "You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:" Most reasonable people would take this to mean that the benefits apply due to their use with reach weapons. As an unarmed strike is not a reach weapon, these benefits would not apply. It doesn't say "when wielding reach weapons" or "when armed with a reach weapon" or even "due to your mastery of reach weapons" (all of which might lead one to possibly believe that the benefits apply as long as a reach weapon is at hand, but not necessarily the weapon being used).

That said, Sage Advice did specifically state that the no Disadvantage with ranged attacks within 5' of a hostile creature due to the Crossbow Expert Feat was also intended to apply to any ranged attacks, even those made without a crossbow, as sort of a bonus feature of that Feat. So it's possible that the RAW is actually also RAI regarding reach and opportunity attacks with PAM.

[Kadesh]

You ignored or conveniently left out the following important text:

“While you are wielding a pike...”

And

“Creatures provoke an attack of opportunity when they enter THE REACH YOU HAVE WITH THAT WEAPON.” (All caps added)

As Ariel Black notes, reach with the weapon is a defined and static term.

So a condition for using the AOO from PAM is wielding the weapon and it expressly ties out to the reach of the weapon.

So either you forgot the wording of the feat or this is some deliberate misreading to try to permit some big league cheese. I’ll choose to believe the former.
What prevents you from making unarmed attacks while wielding the polearm?


"Your reach". Not "the reach of one of your weapons".

A 5e PC does not have several different simultaneous reaches. A 5e PC has a single reach, which is usually 5 feet. If you wield a reach weapon, it is not that you now have a 5 foot reach AND a 10 foot reach! No, you now have a single reach of 10 feet.

The wording of the Reach weapon property, PHB p147:-

"Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to YOUR reach when you attack with it."

You have to prove these assertions of yours. None of what I have said is against the rules.

Ask for rules get rules responses. Don't like em, don't play.

[CorporateSlave]

You ignored or conveniently left out the following important text:

“While you are wielding a pike...”

And

“Creatures provoke an attack of opportunity when they enter THE REACH YOU HAVE WITH THAT WEAPON.” (All caps added)



While I agree with you that this shouldn't be allowed, the current 5e rule set (per D&D Beyond) does not say "the reach you have with that weapon," it just says "your reach."

And although it does say "while you are wielding..." per the PHB definition "an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow" so you could conceivably make an unarmed strike while wielding a two handed weapon by kicking or such.

[AHF]

Well, by RAW I suppose that is correct. However, I find it hard to argue that RAW matches up with RAI in this case, and as a DM I would rule against it.

One of the benefits for PAM are listed above. However, the RAW description for PAM also states "You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:" Most reasonable people would take this to mean that the benefits apply due to their use with reach weapons. As an unarmed strike is not a reach weapon, these benefits would not apply. It doesn't say "when wielding reach weapons" or "when armed with a reach weapon" or even "due to your mastery of reach weapons" (all of which might lead one to possibly believe that the benefits apply as long as a reach weapon is at hand, but not necessarily the weapon being used).

That said, Sage Advice did specifically state that the no Disadvantage with ranged attacks within 5' of a hostile creature due to the Crossbow Expert Feat was also intended to apply to any ranged attacks, even those made without a crossbow, as sort of a bonus feature of that Feat. So it's possible that the RAW is actually also RAI regarding reach and opportunity attacks with PAM.

What he wrote makes internal sense but it omits key language from the rule that prevents you from measuring reach by anything other than reach with the weapon.

[Keravath]

What prevents you from making unarmed attacks while wielding the polearm?


You have to prove these assertions of yours. None of what I have said is against the rules.

Ask for rules get rules responses. Don't like em, don't play.

The RULES actually say:

"When you are unarmed you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike" PHB p195 (Note that the BOLD is quoted from the PHB.)

If you are holding another weapon then you are NOT unarmed and can not make an unarmed strike. The rules for the monk explicitly allow the monk to make unarmed strikes while armed. For everyone else, you can NOT make an unarmed strike while ARMED.

That is a rules response.

The rules for the monk under martial arts state:

"At 1st level, your practice of martial arts gives you mastery of combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk weapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don't have the two-handed or heavy property. You gain the following benefits while you are unarmed or wielding only monk weapons and you aren't wearing armor or wielding a shield:"

This explicitly allows the monk to use monk weapons and unarmed strikes at the same time.

For everyone else, you have to be UNARMED in order to perform an unarmed strike. Your reach is defined by the weapon you are wielding. You do not have multiple reaches.

"Ask for rules get rules responses. Don't like em, don't play."

[CorporateSlave]

What he wrote makes internal sense but it omits key language from the rule that prevents you from measuring reach by anything other than reach with the weapon.

I don't know that the wording left out (as I quoted above) prevents you from measuring reach by anything other than reach with the (pole arm) weapon, but it certainly ought to lead one to believe that the OA benefits of PAM only apply when used with a reach weapon.

Per the PHB, it does sound rather like a PC can have two "reaches" at once if armed with a reach weapon, particularly as concerning OA's ("This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you Attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it.") So, you could certainly argue if you aren't making the OA with the reach weapon, it is not adding the 5' to your reach for that OA.

Since the exact current official wording for the feat PAM does not specify the OA must be made with the reach weapon ("While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.")

I can see why a rules-lawyery interpretation shows no rules are being broken...but the PAM feat description wording of ("You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:") certainly makes it seem like these benefits are only intended for use with reach weapons.

Barring any sort of official clarification, I would say this is one of those DM rulings that could go either way due to possible RAW vs RAI conflict.

[CorporateSlave]

The RULES actually say:

"When you are unarmed you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike" PHB p195 (Note that the BOLD is quoted from the PHB.)



You may have an older version of the PHB I am afraid, the current official rules (as published on D&D Beyond) have the following to say about Unarmed Strikes:

"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."

It seems they no longer consider the need to be unarmed to make an Unarmed Strike. It certainly makes logical sense, as one can easily kick someone while holding a weapon in both hands. And as of now, it is officially RAW as well.

[Arial Black]

You have to prove these assertions of yours.

I did. I quoted the rule in question.


Ask for rules get rules responses.

Exactly!

If you don't like the rules, then don't play.

[Keravath]

You may have an older version of the PHB I am afraid, the current official rules (as published on D&D Beyond) have the following to say about Unarmed Strikes:

"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes."

It seems they no longer consider the need to be unarmed to make an Unarmed Strike. It certainly makes logical sense, as one can easily kick someone while holding a weapon in both hands. And as of now, it is officially RAW as well.

Thanks for the information. I have the errata but it doesn't indicate exactly which parts of the original text should be replaced and I haven't seen a newer printing.

[jh12]

People appear to be discussing versions of the PAM feat with significantly different language, which of course will make disagreements inevitable. My PHB says "the reach you have with that weapon," not "your reach," and I haven't found anything that says that has changed.

But using a polearm to make an opportunity attack when a creature enters the reach range of your unarmed strike also seems to violate the reach conditions themselves. According to my PHB, a weapon with the reach property "adds 5 feet to you reach . . . when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." If you are making an opportunity attack with a weapon, the range for the opportunity attack is set by the reach of that weapon. So at the most, the PAM feat would allow you to make an unarmed strike opportunity attack when a creature entered the reach of your unarmed strike.

[stoutstien]

People appear to be discussing versions of the PAM feat with significantly different language, which of course will make disagreements inevitable. My PHB says "the reach you have with that weapon," not "your reach," and I haven't found anything that says that has changed.

But using a polearm to make an opportunity attack when a creature enters the reach range of your unarmed strike also seems to violate the reach conditions themselves. According to my PHB, a weapon with the reach property "adds 5 feet to you reach . . . when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." If you are making an opportunity attack with a weapon, the range for the opportunity attack is set by the reach of that weapon. So at the most, the PAM feat would allow you to make an unarmed strike opportunity attack when a creature entered the reach of your unarmed strike.
This
With multiple printings and when they posted them on beyond changed the wording again people are going to have miscommunications

I look at like this. If a player wants to use their reaction to cause 1+str mod of damage what does it hurt?

[Kadesh]

So what we're saying is that none of what I have said is breach of the rules?

Okay, thanks, good to know.


This
With multiple printings and when they posted them on beyond changed the wording again people are going to have miscommunications

I look at like this. If a player wants to use their reaction to cause 1+str mod of damage what does it hurt?

Clearly misunderstand, as you are still using the Spear to attack, simply using the fact that your reach is determined by your unarmed strike. Nothing is preventing you from using your spear on the opportunity attack.

[djreynolds]

Are we saying that the PAM wielder can only use their reaction attack at 10ft?

Not 5ft?

A wielder of a quarterstaff or spear now and PAM can attack at a 5ft range with a reaction attack.

The wielder of a pike or halberd can only attack at 10ft, not 10ft thru 5ft?

[Kadesh]

But using a polearm to make an opportunity attack when a creature enters the reach range of your unarmed strike also seems to violate the reach conditions themselves. According to my PHB, a weapon with the reach property "adds 5 feet to you reach . . . when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." If you are making an opportunity attack with a weapon, the range for the opportunity attack is set by the reach of that weapon. So at the most, the PAM feat would allow you to make an unarmed strike opportunity attack when a creature entered the reach of your unarmed strike.

Is it in reach? Can you use a Polearm within reach?
Both of these are yes.

Common sense and raw are not on the same wavelength, so you can ignore that argument.

[CorporateSlave]

Are we saying that the PAM wielder can only use their reaction attack at 10ft?

Not 5ft?

A wielder of a quarterstaff or spear now and PAM can attack at a 5ft range with a reaction attack.

The wielder of a pike or halberd can only attack at 10ft, not 10ft thru 5ft?

No, the RAW would seem to indicate that since PAM works with Spear and Quarterstaff, but also says the creature provokes OA when it enters your reach, and those two weapons do NOT have the Reach property, those would only trigger a PAM opportunity attack when the creature entered their 5' reach.

However, since the RAW also states that a reach weapon adds +5' to reach for the purposes of determining reach for OA with it, any weapon with 10' reach must use the full 10' reach, and therefore a pike or halberd can only be used for a PAM OA (or any OA I suppose) using the 10' reach number, and not if a creature within 10' moves to within 5'. RAW, a DM could rule that you can make an unarmed OA in that case if you have PAM, as the creature is entering your unarmed 5' reach. But you could not use the reach weapon, as the enemy is already within your 10' reach, and is not entering it.

Basically, since PAM just specifies entering your reach, it would vary depending on the reach of the PAM applicable weapon being used.


Is it in reach? Can you use a Polearm within reach?
Both of these are yes.

Common sense and raw are not on the same wavelength, so you can ignore that argument.

True, but the PAM OA benefit states when an opponent "enters your reach." The Reach property states the "weapon adds 5' to your reach" for "determining your reach for OA with it". It doesn't say MAY ADD, it says ADDS.

Since PAM only allows OA when an opponent enters your reach, and reach property makes adding 5' to reach concerning OA mandatory, then a weapon with reach can only trigger a PAM OA when the creature enters the 10' reach, even if for a normal attack that same weapons can be used within 5' as well. A creature 10' away moving to 5' is not entering the reach of a weapon that must be considered to have an OA reach of 10'. That isn't to say that RAW you cannot in that case make an Unarmed Strike, since the creature IS entering your unarmed 5' reach.

Also, are you sure you want to ignore that argument? He actually seems to be agreeing with you that you can make an unarmed strike using PAM when a creature moves from 10' to 5', as you maintain*. He is just saying you can't use the reach weapon for that attack in that specific situation.



*EDIT: Just reread your original post, I see that you are actually saying you can make the OA with the reach pole arm even within 5'. Although re-reading the RAW for PAM, OA, and Reach I am starting to come to the line of thinking that the wording for PAM was changed specifically to allow an unarmed OA when a character with PAM wielding a reach pole arm has an enemy enter their 5' unarmed reach from within their 10' pole arm reach, I can't really see reasonable RAW support for that 5' OA to be made by the 10' reach pole arm.

Given the wording for PAM and the Reach property, a weapon that has a reach of 10' can only trigger a PAM OA at 10' as that is the point at which the enemy enters the weapon's reach as detailed above. An OA "with it" (the reach weapon) has a (mandatory) reach of 10' and a creature moving from 10' to 5' is not entering that 10' reach, and so could not trigger an OA with that specific weapon. Sure you can make a normal Attack with a 10' reach weapon within 5', but the specifics of how PAM OA's work would prevent its use up close for an OA.

Maybe a better way of saying it: if you are using a Reach pole arm to make an OA, the RAW of the Reach property say that weapon's reach is (must be) 10'. However, your unarmed (kick etc) reach is still only 5', as Unarmed Strikes do not have the Reach property. So if you make the attack with an unarmed strike, "your reach" for that OA is only 5'. PAM allows you to make an OA when an opponent enters "your reach," but if you are using a Reach weapon for that OA, "your reach" is 10' for that OA. If you use an unarmed strike, "your reach" is 5', so PAM ought to allow that unarmed strike OA.

By trying to use a Reach pole arm for the OA, you are breaking the "enters your reach" rule of PAM if the enemy is already within 10'.

[djreynolds]

Fascinating.

But it adds interesting complexity if opponents can bypass the 10ft range, they're safe from polearms and pikes but are now in sword range.

[stoutstien]

Is it in reach? Can you use a Polearm within reach?
Both of these are yes.

Common sense and raw are not on the same wavelength, so you can ignore that argument.
If we going with common sense, if I'm past the end of a pole arm by more than a foot the only way the wielder is going to strike me with the pokey end is by stepping back.
This is why pole arm users usually had a front line to prevent this.

[KorvinStarmast]

DM agrees. No opportunity attack from 10 ft to 5 ft. That's fine by me. Thanks.
How nice it is for me to see
a thread that ends in harmony

--

Oh, wait ... :smallfrown:

Trying to put all of the rule into one place for a reference.


POLEARM MASTER
You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:
1. When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff or spear, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The bonus attack uses the same ability modified as the main attack. The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack.
2. While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach

Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it (see chapter 9)

Halberd / Glaive (20 gp 1d10 slashing 6 lb). Heavy, reach, two-handed (basic rules p. 48)

Melee Attacks (http://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdf#page=76)
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. {snip}
Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
{snip}
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.

[CorporateSlave]

Fascinating.

But it adds interesting complexity if opponents can bypass the 10ft range, they're safe from polearms and pikes but are now in sword range.

Well, they aren't exactly in sword range, as those weapons with Reach also have the Two Handed property, and PAM only works if they are Wielded. But Two Handed isn't "Two Handed, Both Feet, Shoulders, Elbows, and Head," so I could see how an unarmed strike might still apply within 5'.*

*Unless the creature has three or more arms, and can wield a two handed pole arm and a sword at the same time, I suppose!

It actually does have some common sense logic to it, which is perhaps why the rule wording was changed. A PAM character is such an expert that even past the pointy end of the pole arm, they can still use the shaft to "distract" a close up enemy enough to kick at them..."The howling Orc charged forward with his axe raised above his head, so excited to have dodged past the razor sharp point of the pike to strike at his enemy, utterly failed to notice the pikeman's knee being brought swiftly up to meet the Orc's groin..."


How nice it is for me to see
a thread that ends in harmony

--

Oh, wait ... :smallfrown:

Well, yes there has been some unfortunate passive-aggressive posting by some even after the OP announced the DM ruling, but I am glad I spent some time looking into the RAW of the issue as a result, because I really do think the way it reads you ought to get an OA at 5', just that the OA must be unarmed and not with the pole arm. I think the OP ought to bring this issue up to the DM as well, as I think it is accurate and makes for some nice added flavor.

[Max_Killjoy]

What prevents you from making unarmed attacks while wielding the polearm?


Not wanting to drop your weapon?

The fact that you're no unarmed?

[CorporateSlave]

Not wanting to drop your weapon?

The fact that you're no unarmed?

Actually kadesh is right about this; current PHB wording allows for unarmed strikes (kicks, head butts, etc) while armed. Just that 999 times out of 1000 non-monks would rather use their weapon obviously. But if the only way to get that OA is to kick, there's nothing RAW that says you can't try it?

[jh12]

Is it in reach? Can you use a Polearm within reach?
Both of these are yes.
Common sense and raw are not on the same wavelength, so you can ignore that argument.

I wasn't relying on common sense, I was relying on RAW, which is why I quoted a portion of the PHB. You've provided nothing in support of your claim that you can use a polearm to make an opportunity attack triggered by a creature entering your unarmed strike range (other than, somewhat ironically, an appeal to common sense).

[CorporateSlave]

I wasn't relying on common sense, I was relying on RAW, which is why I quoted a portion of the PHB. You've provided nothing in support of your claim that you can use a polearm to make an opportunity attack triggered by a creature entering your unarmed strike range (other than, somewhat ironically, an appeal to common sense).

The change in wording ("your reach") can be found a D&D Beyond's digital PHB copy.

However, I still think you are right about this jh12, based on, as you pointed out, the stipulation that OA's with a Reach weapon add 5' to the reach "with it." If your OA is with a reach weapon, then that OA can only be triggered by that weapon's reach. However, also as you said, PAM can trigger based simply on "your reach," so if you're using an unarmed strike for the OA instead of the reach weapon, you can use the unarmed strike's 5' reach.

[KorvinStarmast]

I edited in the rules in their up to date form into my first answer.

[Kadesh]

I wasn't relying on common sense, I was relying on RAW, which is why I quoted a portion of the PHB. You've provided nothing in support of your claim that you can use a polearm to make an opportunity attack triggered by a creature entering your unarmed strike range (other than, somewhat ironically, an appeal to common sense).

You're ignoring the RAW of your 5ft Reach with your Unarmed strike triggering the opportunity attack clause of Polearm master, which you can take using your Polearm.
The change in wording ("your reach") can be found a D&D Beyond's digital PHB copy.

However, I still think you are right about this jh12, based on, as you pointed out, the stipulation that OA's with a Reach weapon add 5' to the reach "with it." If your OA is with a reach weapon, then that OA can only be triggered by that weapon's reach. However, also as you said, PAM can trigger based simply on "your reach," so if you're using an unarmed strike for the OA instead of the reach weapon, you can use the unarmed strike's 5' reach.

I have never said that Reach doesn't get a +5ft reach?

But where are you getting that an opportunity attack can only be made with a weapon that triggers it?

[jh12]

You're ignoring the RAW of your 5ft Reach with your Unarmed strike triggering the opportunity attack clause of Polearm master, which you can take using your Polearm.

No I'm not. I've already conceded that depending on the wording of the PAM feat under consideration, a creature entering your unarmed strike rage could trigger an opportunity attack with an unarmed strike. But you keep saying that you can use your polearm to make an opportunity attack triggered by a creature entering your unarmed strike range, even though you've shown nothing to support that and it contradicts the RAW for reach weapons and opportunity attacks, which, again, says that it adds 5 feet to your reach "when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." Your interpretation reads this restriction entirely out of the rules.

[Kadesh]

could trigger an opportunity attack with an unarmed strike.

Why do you believe this is the case? There are no rules requiring this.

[MThurston]

Are we saying that the PAM wielder can only use their reaction attack at 10ft?

Not 5ft?

A wielder of a quarterstaff or spear now and PAM can attack at a 5ft range with a reaction attack.

The wielder of a pike or halberd can only attack at 10ft, not 10ft thru 5ft?

The only time 5ft reaction attack takes place is if they move out without a disengage.

You can run in circles around your opponent and not give them an attack.

[jh12]

Why do you believe this is the case? There are no rules requiring this.

It's like you ignored the entire rest of my post, which makes a productive conversation rather difficult.

[Mjolnirbear]

The feat allows you to make an attack of opportunity with a different trigger (entering your reach). The feat specifies you must be using one of the listed weapons.

The feat that grants you this special OA has a listed condition, and an unarmed attack does not meet that condition.

If we accept that a creature has multiple reaches, be it via unarmed attack or natural weapons such as horns or a bite while holding a polearm, which is a logical conclusion but is not *clearly* RAI, then said unarmed attack does not gain the benefits of the feat since the feat has a listed condition.

Thus a tabaxi welding a glaive can OA if an enemy enters or leaves their 10' reach (glaive attack) or if they leave their 5' reach (natural weapon or unarmed attack).

The comment about Crossbow Expert is irrelevant, since XBE does not list welding a Crossbow as a condition to eliminate the penalty to ranged attack rolls in melee.

[stoutstien]

The only time 5ft reaction attack takes place is if they move out without a disengage.

You can run in circles around your opponent and not give them an attack.
Caviler lv 10 feature is an exception to this rule.
Or mage Slayer if they cast a spell tho not a AOO which is what PAM should have done also to prevent all this crap.

[Kadesh]

It's like you ignored the entire rest of my post, which makes a productive conversation rather difficult.

It's like you're choosing to make rules up and insist they are the rules, which makes productive conversation difficult.

Are you wielding a Polearm? Are you within reach? Do they move into your reach? Yes is the answer to all of those. It is you who insists only the reach of the polearm counts, and you cannot provide a source for this rule, instead trying to insult me.

[AHF]

It's like you're choosing to make rules up and insist they are the rules, which makes productive conversation difficult.

Are you wielding a Polearm? Are you within reach? Do they move into your reach? Yes is the answer to all of those. It is you who insists only the reach of the polearm counts, and you cannot provide a source for this rule, instead trying to insult me.

If you punch someone, you are not wielding a polar for that attack. What next, you can now use the PAM feat to attack people with a sword because you wield that in your right hand while holding a staff in your left?

The feat requires you to be wielding the polearm weapon not just having it in your possession. This is such a tortured reading of the text for such a gimmicky desired outcome.

Since you appealed to common sense, I invite a common sense explanation of why a monk or fighter does not get an opportunity attack when someone enters their reach with their fist or sword but suddenly gets one when holding a spear in their off hand.

The RAW is less clear with the updated language, but I still can’t see any reasonable interpretation of “wielding” a polearm that makes wielding different from “using”. The RAI is clear as day. Just holding a polearm weapon doesn’t grant extra reflexes with non-polearm weapons.

[Kadesh]

If you punch someone, you are not wielding a polar for that attack.
Noone is punching anyone, where are you getting that from?


What next, you can now use the PAM feat to attack people with a sword because you wield that in your right hand while holding a staff in your left?
Why do you think this is any way related?


The feat requires you to be wielding the polearm weapon not just having it in your possession. This is such a tortured reading of the text for such a gimmicky desired outcome.
You are wielding the weapon. I don't see how attacking a creature within your reach with a weapon you are wielding is gimmicky.


Since you appealed to common sense, I invite a common sense explanation of why a monk or fighter does not get an opportunity attack when someone enters their reach with their fist or sword but suddenly gets one when holding a spear in their off hand.
No I didn't. I told you to stop thinking of common sense, because the two are not aligned. If you thought that was the case, it is no wonder you cannot understand the rules.


The RAW is less clear with the updated language, but I still can’t see any reasonable interpretation of “wielding” a polearm that makes wielding different from “using”. The RAI is clear as day. Just holding a polearm weapon doesn’t grant extra reflexes with non-polearm weapons.
If the RAI are clear, but the rules are not, then why not write the rules that way. Also, the common name for RAI is 'houserules or homebrews', so thank you for at least acknowledging that.

[jh12]

It's like you're choosing to make rules up and insist they are the rules, which makes productive conversation difficult.

Quoting rules out of the PHB is not making up rules.


Are you wielding a Polearm? Are you within reach? Do they move into your reach? Yes is the answer to all of those. It is you who insists only the reach of the polearm counts, and you cannot provide a source for this rule,

Except I have repeatedly cited a source from the PHB for my interpretation which, once again, you have ignored. And once again, you have failed to provide any support from the rules for your claim.

[NaughtyTiger]

If you punch someone, you are not wielding a polar for that attack.

If you kick someone, you can still be holding and use (ie wield) a polearm during the unarmed attack.


but I still can’t see any reasonable interpretation of “wielding” a polearm that makes wielding different from “using”.

From Dual Wield feat:
"You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand."
here wield clearly means hold, not use for attack (unless you contend that you only get the bonus during off-hand attack)

In general I disagree with Kadesh's interpretation, but it is a reasonable one.

[stoutstien]

How I rule it.
-Allow Pam to apply to UA strikes for AOO entering 5ft. 1+str mod. call it a mid shaft strike
-reach weapons can only be used at 10 feet.

Now they is a trade off for having a reach weapon if they can get past your pole arm.
Do you drop it and draw a back up weapon? Do you back up eating the AOO so you can get a full attack action with your mighty pole arm?

[NaughtyTiger]

-reach weapons can only be used at 10 feet.


I would call that houserule rather than a ruling, cuz it contradicts the text rules for reach weapons. and makes the lance a strictly better weapon (without the PAM feat).

[Kadesh]

Quoting rules out of the PHB is not making up rules.



Except I have repeatedly cited a source from the PHB for my interpretation which, once again, you have ignored. And once again, you have failed to provide any support from the rules for your claim.

I could quote falling damage rules for all the relevance of your comments. Provide the rule that states you may only make an attack with the weapon triggering it.

Your interpretation that you can use the polearm is not wrong. Your interpretation it is the only one is wrong however.

[Max_Killjoy]

I could quote falling damage rules for all the relevance of your comments. Provide the rule that states you may only make an attack with the weapon triggering it.


If I were running a game and someone demanded to a dagger or sword or mace or fist or foot to make the attack triggered by their special skill with polearms, designed to take advantage of the reach of their polearm, I'd laugh them out of the room.

And no, I don't care how the "RAW" can be parsed to justify such a comical claim.

[stoutstien]

I would call that houserule rather than a ruling, cuz it contradicts the text rules for reach weapons. and makes the lance a strictly better weapon (without the PAM feat).
Most definitely a house rule but it makes narrative sense and it balanced out pole arms other than the stupid one hand/duelist/Pam crap

[Kadesh]

If I were running a game and someone demanded to a dagger or sword or mace or fist or foot to make the attack triggered by their special skill with polearms, designed to take advantage of the reach of their polearm, I'd laugh them out of the room.

And no, I don't care how the "RAW" can be parsed to justify such a comical claim.
The fact you still think that is what is being suggested is what is amusing here mate.

[AHF]

If you kick someone, you can still be holding and use (ie wield) a polearm during the unarmed attack.



From Dual Wield feat:
"You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand."
here wield clearly means hold, not use for attack (unless you contend that you only get the bonus during off-hand attack)

In general I disagree with Kadesh's interpretation, but it is a reasonable one.

First, I 100% disagree with your reading of the Dual Wield feat. The character is using the second weapon in defense of himself. It is not there just for show - that is the source of the defense. I do not see that as a reading that makes merely holding the weapon in a completely superfluous fashion as the same as “weilding” which is using the weapon to implement the effect of the feat. The second weapon is used for that defense and blocking attacks.

Let’s run with the “just holding it is good enough” and see where that leads. So your reading of the feat is that a character with the PAM feat with only his bare hands doesn’t get an AOO but if holds a spear in his off hand and doesn’t use it at all then he can make one with his bare hands?

We all agree he can hold a sword in his hand and make PAM AOO just as well as his bare hands or his foot under that reading, correct?

[Kadesh]

First, I 100% disagree with your reading of the Dual Wield feat. The character is using the second weapon in defense of himself. It is not there just for show - that is the source of the defense. I do not see that as a reading that makes merely holding the weapon in a completely superfluous fashion as the same as “weilding” which is using the weapon to implement the effect of the feat. The second weapon is used for that defense and blocking attacks.

Let’s run with the “just holding it is good enough” and see where that leads. So your reading of the feat is that a character with the PAM feat with only his bare hands doesn’t get an AOO but if holds a spear in his off hand and doesn’t use it at all then he can make one with his bare hands?

We all agree he can hold a sword in his hand and make PAM AOO just as well as his bare hands or his foot under that reading, correct?

How are you making this non sequitur bull**** up?

My 'interpretation' has a character using a Polearm making a Polearm attack.

[AHF]

How are you making this non sequitur bull**** up?

My 'interpretation' has a character using a Polearm making a Polearm attack.

Please tell this guy to stop posting non sequitur BS using your account:


Yes, it triggers when you go into 5ft, because of your unarmed strike's 5ft reach. You can use any weapon you wish when you make the opportunity attack, be it unarmed or your Reach Polearm.

[Kadesh]

Please tell this guy to stop posting non sequitur BS using your account:

You are telling me an unarmed strike cannot be used to make an opportunity attack? You are telling me a Polearm cannot be used to make an opportunity attack?

[jh12]

I could quote falling damage rules for all the relevance of your comments.

Or, you know, you could quote something supporting your position or rebutting mine. That would probably be more helpful.

[AHF]

You are telling me an unarmed strike cannot be used to make an opportunity attack? You are telling me a Polearm cannot be used to make an opportunity attack?

I am saying a polearm weapon must be used to make the attack. Wielding a polearm in this context means both holding and using that weapon, RAW. Thus you absolutely can make a PAM AOO using a polearm when the creature enters your reach but cannot use an unarmed strike for a PAM AOO.

If you are saying any weapon (unarmed, dagger, sword, etc.) can be used we have a big difference in RAW reading. In you are simply saying that the attack can be made using a PAM weapon at some point other than the outer limits of that reach then we have a pretty minor difference in our reading.

[Kadesh]

Or, you know, you could quote something supporting your position or rebutting mine. That would probably be more helpful.
I've looked high and low for a place which states something along the lines of how to resolve opportunity attacks when you have multiple reaches.

You insist it is only based on the polearm. I can't find a rule which states as such. You insist there is. So, tell me where.

[Kadesh]

I am saying a polearm weapon must be used to make the attack. Wielding a polearm in this context means both holding and using that weapon, RAW. Thus you absolutely can make a PAM AOO using a polearm when the creature enters your reach but cannot use an unarmed strike for a PAM AOO.
But 5ft is still within your reach, which is what Polearm Madter requires.


If you are saying any weapon (unarmed, dagger, sword, etc.) can be used we have a big difference in RAW reading. In you are simply saying that the attack can be made using a PAM weapon at some point other than the outer limits of that reach then we have a pretty minor difference in our reading.
Any weapon can be used. If polearm master required it to be made with the polearm, it would say so. Having a difference in reading does not mean you are correct either.

[Max_Killjoy]

The fact you still think that is what is being suggested is what is amusing here mate.


Oh...



Yes, it triggers when you go into 5ft, because of your unarmed strike's 5ft reach. You can use any weapon you wish when you make the opportunity attack, be it unarmed or your Reach Polearm.


Or are you suggesting that you get one OA for the PAM, and another OA for your normal reach too?

Because neither of those makes any sense, and both appear based on naked parsing of the RAW, without regard to the in-"fiction" situation underlying the rules.

[AHF]

But 5ft is still within your reach, which is what Polearm Madter requires.


Any weapon can be used. If polearm master required it to be made with the polearm, it would say so. Having a difference in reading does not mean you are correct either.

Wielding literally is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “Hold and use (a weapon or tool).”

If you are not using it to make the attack, you are not wielding the polearm for purposes of the attack and cannot take advantage of the feat.

And you are literally right back to what prompted you to make a personal attack a few posts ago calling the idea that people were concerned about a reading that allowed for daggers, fists, etc to be used to make a PAM AOO “non sequitur bull****.” So I am scratching my head why you felt the need to take a personal shot like that when that is exactly what you are espousing here. Under your reading, you need never once in your career use a polearm to attack but still get the PAM AOO as long as you take the feat and hold a PAM weapon superfluously in your other hand as you take your AOO and main attacks with your mace, short sword, rapier, flail, etc.

[AHF]

Oh...



Or are you suggesting that you get one OA for the PAM, and another OA for your normal reach too?

Because neither of those makes any sense, and both appear based on naked parsing of the RAW, without regard to the in-"fiction" situation underlying the rules.

Logically if you buy into his reading you would get both but they couldn’t be in the same round due to only having one reaction. I gave an example of this earlier with the enemy attacking a comrade who is 8 feet away (thus entering the 10 foot reach) and then the next round attacking the PAM user and entering a 5 foot reach of his fists or sword or dagger or whatever is being done with or used in his other hand.

[Kadesh]

You are still wielding it. You are making a Polearm attack. You have +5ft reach on opportunity attacks with the reach weapon. You have 5ft reach regardless. A creature enters your reach at 10ft, triggering opportunity attack. It also enters your reach at 5ft, while you are still wielding (holding and using) the spear, because you have an unarmed strike.

The opportunity attack can be made as a melee attack. What that melee attack is, is up to you, provided it is a melee attack.

Point out where exactly your disconnect is, and I can point out where you're going wrong.

[AHF]

You are still wielding it. You are making a Polearm attack. You have +5ft reach on opportunity attacks with the reach weapon. You have 5ft reach regardless. A creature enters your reach at 10ft, triggering opportunity attack. It also enters your reach at 5ft, while you are still wielding (holding and using) the spear, because you have an unarmed strike.

The opportunity attack can be made as a melee attack. What that melee attack is, is up to you, provided it is a melee attack.

Point out where exactly your disconnect is, and I can point out where you're going wrong.

I assume under your reading you don’t let PAM users get both of these in the same round?

For me it comes back to the requirement to be wielding the polearm. You believe merely holding it is enough; I read the RAW per the Oxford dictionary definition as requiring use of it specifically relating to the attack at issue. Your reach with the PAM weapon you are wielding never changes. For a polearm it is 10’. When wielding a polearm, your reach is 10 feet.

When wielding a different weapon like your fist or a rapier there is a different reach but when you use that reach you are not wielding the PAM weapon for that attack and you are instead wielding your fist or sword or mace, etc.

[Kadesh]

I don't let players get both?

What are you on about? You have one reaction.

You have a severe issue with order of operations.

[NaughtyTiger]

First, I 100% disagree with your reading of the Dual Wield feat. The character is using the second weapon in defense of himself. It is not there just for show - that is the source of the defense. I do not see that as a reading that makes merely holding the weapon in a completely superfluous fashion as the same as “weilding” which is using the weapon to implement the effect of the feat. The second weapon is used for that defense and blocking attacks.


In the game rules, what is the difference between "using the weapon in defense of himself" and "merely holding the weapon"?
Can he make an off-hand attack with the weapon? Or is the precluded cuz he is using it for defense?
To be clear, he can use the weapon. Mechanically there is no difference, just fluff.



Let’s run with the “just holding it is good enough” and see where that leads. So your reading of the feat is that a character with the PAM feat with only his bare hands doesn’t get an AOO but if holds a spear in his off hand and doesn’t use it at all then he can make one with his bare hands?

Let's read what I wrote, shall we?

In general I disagree with Kadesh's interpretation, but it is a reasonable one.
hmm. it looks like i said, you got use a PAM weapon with PAM features.

but a strict reading of the rule text does not specify that outright...
Kadesh uses a very strict reading of the rule text for his arguments. He openly states that the very strict reading may be at odds with common sense, and very strict reading may be unplayable.

[AHF]

I don't let players get both?

What are you on about? You have one reaction.

Your last post was clear that you viewed the PAM AOO as triggering at both 10’ and 5’. It didn’t give a caveat about not being able to use both in the same round and given the different reading of some of the rules, I was uncertain whether you would allow both triggers to take effect in the same round. Per my earlier post, I agree that this would not be possible in the same round under your reading due to the one reaction limitation. Instead, I am reading the way you read this to say that the PAM user would be able to make two PAM AOO without the opponent ever leaving the PAM user’s range only where the opponent enters the 10’ reach one round and then then the 5’ reach on a different round.

[Kadesh]

Both triggers take place. The triggers take place even if you don't have a reaction to use it. You/the player chooses when to take the reaction provided it occurs when the trigger states.

I have no idea in how to decipher the rest of your post.

[jh12]

Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach . . . when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it.

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.

An opportunity attack is triggered when a creature leaves your reach (or enters with PAM). But if you are using a reach weapon, by RAW the range that triggers the opportunity attack for that reach weapon must include the extra 5 feet granted by the reach condition. If you make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon at 5 feet, then you are violating the conditions imposed on opportunity attacks by the reach condition. You are making an opportunity attack with a reach weapon even though the creature hasn't arrived at the range that triggers an opportunity attack with that weapon.

[AHF]

In the game rules, what is the difference between "using the weapon in defense of himself" and "merely holding the weapon"?
Can he make an off-hand attack with the weapon? Or is the precluded cuz he is using it for defense?
To be clear, he can use the weapon. Mechanically there is no difference, just fluff.



It is the difference between wearing a shield and not wearing one. No action is needed to affect AC because the mechanic assumes the user actively utilizes the shield or offhand weapon to block, parry, etc. opposing attacks making the user harder to hit.

A two weapon fighter on offense can make a bonus action attack but it must be with the second weapon. Otherwise, the user is free to hold another weapon (perhaps for defensive purposes as above) but that second weapon has zero impact on offense until it is actually wielded (through multi attack, action surge, twf bonus action, etc)

Conversely, holding a spear and long sword but never attacking with the spear is an example of not wielding the spear for any particular attack, imo. The feat says the user must be currently wielding the PAM weapon which under my reading requires actual use (much like with the twf example above). Otherwise, the staff or spear, etc. is superfluous and doesn’t trigger the PAM feat until it is actually wielded for the relevant attack.

[Kadesh]

An opportunity attack is triggered when a creature leaves your reach (or enters with PAM).
Correct.


But if you are using a reach weapon, by RAW the range that triggers the opportunity attack for that reach weapon must include the extra 5 feet granted by the reach condition.
Ish. The PAM attack is triggered by entering your reach. 5ft is still your reach.


If you make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon at 5 feet, then you are violating the conditions imposed on opportunity attacks by the reach condition.
No, you are not.


You are making an opportunity attack with a reach weapon even though the creature hasn't arrived at the range that triggers an opportunity attack with that weapon.
Interesting assertion. Not backed up by the rules, though.

[AHF]

Both triggers take place. The triggers take place even if you don't have a reaction to use it. You/the player chooses when to take the reaction provided it occurs when the trigger states.

I have no idea in how to decipher the rest of your post.

This may help clarify. Under your reading of PAM:

* Character A is a fighter using a polearm
* Character B is his companion rogue who is 8 feet away
* Enemy 1 is the opponent at issue

Round 1
-Enemy 2 sneak up and shoots Character A with Enemy 2 now from 8 feet away
-Character A attacks and kills Enemy 2 with his polearm
-Next Enemy 1 charges and grapples Character B
-When Enemy 1 enters Character A’s 10’ reach, he makes an AOO with his polearm
-Enemy 1 ends his turn attacking Character B

Round 2
-Character A uses his action to drink a healing potion and doesn’t move
-Enemy 1 charges Character A closing the gap from 8’ to 1’ apart
-Character A triggers a second PAM AOO when Enemy 1 reaches 5’ away and Character makes his second PAM AOO on the same target
-For this second PAM AOO, Character A can use his polearm again or can use his fist, foot, hold the polearm with one hand and use a dagger, etc.

Is this one way how this scenario can play out under your reading?

[NaughtyTiger]

second weapon has zero impact on offense until it is actually wielded (through multi attack, action surge, twf bonus action, etc)

This is where I disagree slightly. The dual wielding feat specifies that you get the +1 AC while wielding a 2nd weapon.
Mechanically, having the 2nd weapon in your off-hand is enough to "wield" it for the bonus AC.

If you interpret wield such that you aren't wielding the weapon until you "actually ... multi attack, action surge, twf bonus action, etc", then you shouldn't get the bonus AC.

Do we agree on this point?

[Misterwhisper]

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
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 #DnD

However you are always considered to have a reach of 5ft due to unarmed strikes.

Say you have a halberd in hand and the enemy is adjacent to you and moves back 5 feet.
The enemy would provoke an attack of opportunity from your unarmed strike because they left the range of the unarmed strike.
However, they did not provoke an opportunity attack from your halberd because they did not leave the range of it.

You could:

A. Choose to take the OA with your unarmed strike.

B. Choose not to take it with your unarmed strike and then wait and see if they move further to provoke from your reach weapon.

Different example:

You have the dual wielder feat and are using a Longsword and a whip.

If the enemy is adjacent to you and moves back 5 feet you could OA with the longsword but not the whip.
If the enemy moves from 5 feet from you to 10 feet from you, you can OA with the whip but not the longsword.

If you have PAM you can make an OA when the enemy enters into the reach which is given by the feat.

The feat does not let you use an attack with the halberd if they left the reach of your unarmed strike but not the one with the reach weapon.

[NaughtyTiger]

Round 1
-Enemy 1 enters Character A’s 10’ reach, he makes an AOO with his polearm

Round 2
-Enemy 1 charges Character A closing the gap from 8’ to 1’ apart
-Character A triggers a second PAM AOO when Enemy 1 reaches 5’ away and Character makes his second PAM AOO on the same target using his polearm again or can use his fist, foot, hold the polearm with one hand and use a dagger, etc.

Is this one way how this scenario can play out under your reading?

simplified the scenario

[AHF]

This is where I disagree slightly. The dual wielding feat specifies that you get the +1 AC while wielding a 2nd weapon.
Mechanically, having the 2nd weapon in your off-hand is enough to "wield" it for the bonus AC.

If you interpret wield such that you aren't wielding the weapon until you "actually ... multi attack, action surge, twf bonus action, etc", then you shouldn't get the bonus AC.

Do we agree on this point?

No. We are talking about defense and attacks and they are different. There is no action associated with using a shield or offhand weapon to defend yourself but it is assumed. But if there was some unusual circumstance where a player tells me “I am going to hold a shield but I will be holding it away from my body so that it imposes no tactical advantage on defense and literally cannot block anything fired by that archer” or “I am going to hold two daggers and invest in the feat but I am affirmatively telling you that I will not be defending myself with my offhand dagger, not sure why, but I will not be using it” then I’m not giving the AC bonus for either scenario. But no one does this because it is ridiculous to think it won’t be actively used for defense. In all cases of which I am aware, it is affirmatively assumes that the shield or offhand weapon is used for defense. That assumption of active use is what distinguishes between a shield in a character’s possession and a shield he or she is wielding.

Attacks are simpler because there is an action where you have to identify the weapon being wielded for the attack. A fighter holding a +2 dagger in one hand and a non-magical dagger in the other gets an advantage against creatures resistant to non-magical physical damage when he wields the magical dagger for an attack. This is measured for each attack individually. If the fighter has extra attack, he can choose to make those with either weapon. When he wields the magic dagger for an attack, it bypasses the resistance. When he wields the non-magical dagger for a swing then the attack is subject to resistance. If the non-magic dagger is in the offhand, that is the only weapon that can be wielded for the twf bonus attack. He cannot wield the main +2 dagger for this attack.

[AHF]

simplified the scenario

Thanks. That gets to the issue more quickly.

[jh12]

Ish. The PAM attack is triggered by entering your reach. 5ft is still your reach.

Not for a reach weapon, as the rules I quoted clearly explain.

[NaughtyTiger]

No. We are talking about defense and attacks and they are different.

We are at odds.

I view the definition of "wield" as static.
You change the definition between offense and defense



When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a 2+ bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

If you a holding two daggers, but only attack with one (ie. only wield one) do you get the +2 bonus damage?

Your definition MUST say yes
Mine MUST say no

[CorporateSlave]

First, I 100% disagree with your reading of the Dual Wield feat. The character is using the second weapon in defense of himself. It is not there just for show - that is the source of the defense. I do not see that as a reading that makes merely holding the weapon in a completely superfluous fashion as the same as “weilding” which is using the weapon to implement the effect of the feat. The second weapon is used for that defense and blocking attacks.

Let’s run with the “just holding it is good enough” and see where that leads. So your reading of the feat is that a character with the PAM feat with only his bare hands doesn’t get an AOO but if holds a spear in his off hand and doesn’t use it at all then he can make one with his bare hands?

We all agree he can hold a sword in his hand and make PAM AOO just as well as his bare hands or his foot under that reading, correct?

Well, if the weapon in question is Versatile like a spear, and if you're using it one handed, I don't really see a reason you couldn't make an unarmed strike with your other fist RAW, just why would you when you could use the spear's d6? I also don't see any "functional" reason why not, as there's no RAW reason I have found not to make the case that you're using your mastery of the spear to distract or otherwise open the opponent approaching you to an opportunity attack.

In either case if it was an OA from the opponent leaving, you would be allowed to use either one, yes? Regarding a sword in the other hand, I don't know, maybe if he also has Dual Wielder since neither weapon is Light? Jeremy Crawford himself has said sometimes a feat has a part of it's benefit that carries over to other areas (as in the Crossbow Master ranged within 5' benefit).

The PAM wording nowhere specifies you must use the pole arm for the OA, just that you must be wielding it. There is no definitive definition that I have found for what RAW "wielding" is, but its reasonable to assume that means "holding in a way so that it can be used." Therefore, a spear could be held one handed and be "wielded" even if it isn't used for a given Attack, but a Pike (with Two Handed property) must be held in two hands to be wielded.

[Kadesh]

Not for a reach weapon, as the rules I quoted clearly explain.

You have a different comprehension to mine, then. Enjoy yours.

[AHF]

The PAM wording nowhere specifies you must use the pole arm for the OA, just that you must be wielding it. There is no definitive definition that I have found for what RAW "wielding" is, but its reasonable to assume that means "holding in a way so that it can be used." Therefore, a spear could be held one handed and be "wielded" even if it isn't used for a given Attack, but a Pike (with Two Handed property) must be held in two hands to be wielded.

For me, RAW to wield means to use - not simply to have the option to use. See my post above for more on that.

RAI I think also supports that reading because you only get some special benefit from wielding the item when you use it. If you only need to hold the spear but not use it and can instead use your long sword there is logical reason you can’t just dispense with the spear and simply use the long sword.

That is how the crossbow expert feat you mentions works. For that, the ranged attack feature (letting you attack within 5’ without disadvantage) does not require wielding a crossbow. The extra attack piece in contrast requires wielding a light crossbow.

PAM AOO requires wielding a PAM weapon for the attack.

[NaughtyTiger]

Well, if the weapon in question is Versatile like a spear, and if you're using it one handed, I don't really see a reason you couldn't make an unarmed strike with your other fist RAW, just why would you when you could use the spear's d6? I also don't see any "functional" reason why not, as there's no RAW reason I have found not to make the case that you're using your mastery of the spear to distract or otherwise open the opponent approaching you to an opportunity attack.

In either case if it was an OA from the opponent leaving, you would be allowed to use either one, yes? Regarding a sword in the other hand, I don't know, maybe if he also has Dual Wielder since neither weapon is Light? Jeremy Crawford himself has said sometimes a feat has a part of it's benefit that carries over to other areas (as in the Crossbow Master ranged within 5' benefit).

The PAM wording nowhere specifies you must use the pole arm for the OA, just that you must be wielding it. There is no definitive definition that I have found for what RAW "wielding" is, but its reasonable to assume that means "holding in a way so that it can be used." Therefore, a spear could be held one handed and be "wielded" even if it isn't used for a given Attack, but a Pike (with Two Handed property) must be held in two hands to be wielded.

How does your argument change if you kick for your unarmed attack (keeping both hands on the glaive)?



The extra attack piece in contrast requires wielding a light crossbow.
xbow master doesn't use "wielding" anywhere in the feat text


For me, RAW to wield means to use - not simply to have the option to use. See my post above for more on that.
Please clarify whether you can hold 2 weapons, but only attack with one, and gain the +2 damage from Dueling fighting style.

[Mjolnirbear]

You have a different comprehension to mine, then. Enjoy yours.

So do the rules. The Polearm master feat has a condition applied to the OA granted by the feat. The condition is weilding one of the listed weapons.

If you're using the Polearm, the feat applies and the condition is satisfied. If you're not, then the feat does not apply and only the normal OA trigger applies.

[AHF]

We are at odds.

I view the definition of "wield" as static.
You change the definition between offense and defense


If you a holding two daggers, but only attack with one (ie. only wield one) do you get the +2 bonus damage?

Your definition MUST say yes
Mine MUST say no

We do read that differently. I see two clauses:

1 - Wielding a one handed melee weapon
2 - No other weapons

That is met under either situation. If you read it as “wielding no other weapons on that attack” then I agree you run into problems under my read. However, I don’t feel it is necessary to read that in as the character is holding another weapon and thus the “no other weapon” piece isn’t met. I can see the argument you are making, though, and see that as a valid criticism.

If you read the text without any context then you can reach ridiculous results under either your definition or mine. Do you agree that from a real world RAI perspective that someone who specializes in long swords and announces he will never attack once in his career using any other weapon should not logically get a PAM AOO because he decides to hold a spear in his offhand superfluously just to get that mechanical advantage (and then lose that ability if he sets the superfluous spear down)?

I find that actually more ridiculous from a “just listen and see if this makes sense” type of reading than allowing for the +2 damage bonus to apply if a player declares he will never use the dagger in his offhand to attack.

If you believe non-PAM weapons can be used for and trigger PAM AOOs, do you also buy the logical extension to “I get two attacks of opportunity on the same person without them ever leaving my range” example you helped me simplify?

[Kadesh]

So do the rules. The Polearm master feat has a condition applied to the OA granted by the feat. The condition is weilding one of the listed weapons.

If you're using the Polearm, the feat applies and the condition is satisfied. If you're not, then the feat does not apply and only the normal OA trigger applies.
You'll kindly prove your assertions, rather than making leaps of logic. Enjoy your game. :)

[AHF]

So do the rules. The Polearm master feat has a condition applied to the OA granted by the feat. The condition is weilding one of the listed weapons.

If you're using the Polearm, the feat applies and the condition is satisfied. If you're not, then the feat does not apply and only the normal OA trigger applies.

As I’ve stated, I think this is the only reasonable RAW reading of the text so I agree with you. This seems like a deliberately contorted reading for the purpose of getting a second AOO.

Even though I read it differently, I wouldn’t stop a PC who typically uses a polearm from eschewing the PAM AOO with the polearm and just hitting with his fist if he had some flavorful role playing reason because it wouldn’t have any negative impact on game mechanics.

If he just wants to do both a polearm AOO one round and a second AOO with his fist then that would not allow me to overlook what I think the plain text means. I suspect this is about sentinel stopping movement and then getting a second AOO when the enemy subsequently closes that gap the next round.

[AHF]

You'll kindly prove your assertions, rather than making leaps of logic. Enjoy your game. :)

Can you please answer the hypothetical about multiple AOOs on the same target in different rounds? Heading you say that it is one or the other and not two AOOs will help me at least get to a place where I’m content to agree to disagree but to let my players operate under either interpretation.

[CorporateSlave]

Interesting assertion. Not backed up by the rules, though.

Sure it is. I think you are over simplifying "your reach" in this case to mean "any reach that you can lay claim to with what you have in your hands at the moment." But I believe your interpretation stops too early (or the steps are out of order)

To break it down with RAW references:

Turn 1:
You have PAM and are wielding a Pike (Reach property) with both hands. An enemy approaches to within 10'. Can you make an OA with the Pike?
OA states: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."
PAM states: "While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach."
Reach property states: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you Attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it."

So can you OA with the Pike? Questions:
Is the opponent entering your reach?
Well, what is your reach? Pike has Reach property, so 5' are added to your reach when determining reach for OA's with it"
This makes your reach, with the Pike only, 10'.
So an opponent moving to within 10' is entering your reach, and so they are provoking an OA. You may make an OA with the Pike. Nobody disputes this, it is one of the main features of PAM. No problem.

Turn 2:
You still have PAM and are still wielding your Pike (Reach property) with both hands. The same enemy now moves from 10' to 5'. Can you make an OA with the Pike?
So can you OA with the Pike? Questions:
Is the opponent entering your reach?
Well, what is your reach? Pike has Reach property, so 5' are added to your reach when determining reach for OA's with it"
However, since the unarmed strike rules say: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)." you also have the option to kick (for example) which will have a reach of 5'.
We are checking to see if this movement will provoke an OA.
What is a Pike's reach? Well, per the RAW, when determining reach for purposes of provoking OA, you must add +5' so your reach is 10'.
But wait, for unarmed strikes your reach is 5'.
So is the opponent entering your reach of 5'? Yes.
Does PAM specify the PAM OA must be made with the pole arm? No.
So you stop here, saying that therefore you can use the Pike to make the OA within 5'.

But.

Reach property RAW: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you Attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it."
You are trying to make an OA with it. This means your reach is 10', with it. This means, you have not satisfied the PAM requirement of entering your reach to attack with this weapon (it).

You seem to want to calculate your reach first, then declare if the OA criteria is met due to a given your reach, then make the provoked OA using a weapon for which your reach is different than the your reach you used to determine if the OA is provoked in the first place!

Find me the RAW reference where it says you can have multiple your reach at the same time, all of which apply equally to all weapons/conditions/effects that have resulted in having more than one your reach.

There is nothing RAW that I can find which would lead anyone to believe that RAW or RAI your reach applies to anything other than the specific weapon (or unarmed strike, or tentacle, etc) that is being used in that instance. If your OA is with the Pike, your reach is 10'. If your OA is unarmed strike, your reach is 5'.

Basically, it comes down to what exactly your reach means. You claim it is a general term, therefore it applies evenly to all things, and your reach with unarmed can be used to provoke your reach related effects with a Reach weapon. Everyone else claims it applies to the attack being made. Attacking with a Pike? Your reach is 10' You claim there is no RAW to support this. But where is the RAW to support your claim?

I would cite this as RAW to support my claim:
Reach: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you Attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it." Per this sentence, your reach is only increased by 5' for two specific instances. When you Attack with it, or determining your reach for OA with it. So the rules have a clear cut example that your reach is specific to only certain situations when a specific item is used for a specific thing (each example listed states "with it")

If you are making an unarmed strike OA, then your reach cannot be considered to be 10', obviously, even if wielding in Pike with Reach property, right? So where is it written that the converse is true, as you state? That if you are looking to make a Pike weapon OA, you can use the your reach for the unarmed strike even though the PAM text clearly states that if "other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach?" If the OA is with a Pike (or if you are determining if an OA attack is provoked per Reach text), your reach is clearly 10'?

Basically, instead of your reach (which is see as an important, specific term), you're trying to make it mean any reach of yours. I could buy that the PAM feat would allow an unarmed strike when an enemy approaches to within 5'. But not that you can use your Reach weapon for an OA when the enemy moves to within 5'. With a Reach weapon, your reach is defined as 10' RAW, and the enemy has already entered that your reach.

[AHF]

xbow master doesn't use "wielding" anywhere in the feat text



It uses language that means the exact same thing. “Use a bonus action to attack with the hand crossbow you are holding.”

I don’t see a meaningful difference between that and “use a bonus action to make an attack wielding a hand crossbow.”

They mean the same thing.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't think JC has made mention of it, but Mearls has stated (early when 5e started) that Polearm Master must use the weapon that allowed the trigger (which is why you can't use War Caster + PAM to cast something like Command).

[NaughtyTiger]

When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and [wield] no other weapons



We do read that differently. I see two clauses:

1 - Wielding a one handed melee weapon
2 - [Wield] No other weapons


The 2nd clause has an assumed verb, which in English is typically the same as the first verb. Thus the crux is still there
Wield a longsword in your left hand for the attack, hold a whip in your right hand doing nothing
- or -
Wieding a longsword in your left hand for the attack, and wielding a whip in your right hand doing nothing.

I had to snip a lot of your discussion because it was wandering an unclear. Simplicity is good.


If you believe non-PAM weapons can be used for and trigger PAM AOOs, do you also buy the logical extension to “I get two attacks of opportunity on the same person without them ever leaving my range” example you helped me simplify?

As I said previously:

In general I disagree with Kadesh's interpretation, but it is a reasonable one.
hmm. it looks like i said, you got use a PAM weapon with PAM features.


It uses language that means the exact same thing. “Use a bonus action to attack with the hand crossbow you are holding.”
I don’t see a meaningful difference between that and “use a bonus action to make an attack wielding a hand crossbow.”
They mean the same thing.

My issue is I do not agree with your definition of wield.
It is not a defined term in the PHB or DMG.
So we must look to the uses in the game.
Your definition changes between offense and defense, between one-handed and two-hand.
Mine is consistent: holding and able to use.

[AHF]

The 2nd clause has an assumed verb, which in English is typically the same as the first verb. Thus the crux is still there
Wield a longsword in your left hand for the attack, hold a whip in your right hand doing nothing
- or -
Wieding a longsword in your left hand for the attack, and wielding a whip in your right hand doing nothing.

I had to snip a lot of your discussion because it was wandering an unclear. Simplicity is good.



As I said previously:

hmm. it looks like i said, you got use a PAM weapon with PAM features.

My issue is I do not agree with your definition of wield.
It is not a defined term in the PHB or DMG.
So we must look to the uses in the game.
Your definition changes between offense and defense, between one-handed and two-hand.
Mine is consistent: holding and able to use.

How do you conclude that you must use a PAM weapon with PAM features if the only requirement for PAM is holding (but not using) a PAM weapon?

[Mjolnirbear]

You'll kindly prove your assertions, rather than making leaps of logic. Enjoy your game. :)

A simple, cursory reading of the feat says while weilding (list of applicable polearms) you can OA when someone enters your reach.

While wielding. It says quite clearly. That's my proof. Where's yours?

[NaughtyTiger]

if the only requirement for PAM is holding (but not using) a PAM weapon?

I am not arguing that.

I am arguing that "wield" means holding and able to use, but not necessarily attacking.

You keep changing the definition of words.

[AHF]

Mine is consistent: holding and able to use.

As a DM, if a character told you they were holding their shield away from their body to ensure it was not being used for defense you would tell them that they get the shield bonus to AC anyway simply because if they changed their mind they could at some point in the future actually use it?

(Edited to get to the actual state versus potential state issue).

[AHF]

I am not arguing that.

I am arguing that "wield" means holding and able to use, but not necessarily attacking.

You keep changing the definition of words.

Maybe you can clarify your objection to his interpretation of being able to use fists for PAM AOO if you satisfy the requirement to wield a PAM weapon even if you aren’t using it.

For me, I am using the dictionary definition.

[Kadesh]

A simple, cursory reading of the feat says while weilding (list of applicable polearms) you can OA when someone enters your reach.

While wielding. It says quite clearly. That's my proof. Where's yours?
If you read closely between the lines of Falling Damage, you can see where I picked up my interpretation from.

Rolleyes.gif

[AHF]

If you read closely between the lines of Falling Damage, you can see where I picked up my interpretation from.

Rolleyes.gif

Can you address the two AOO hypothetical. Thanks!

[Kadesh]

Maybe you can clarify your objection to his interpretation of being able to use fists for PAM AOO if you satisfy the requirement to wield a PAM weapon even if you aren’t using it.

For me, I am using the dictionary definition.
I like how you your interpretation suggests you aren't wielding a weapon until you are making an attack, thereby self invalidating.

[NaughtyTiger]

Mine is consistent: holding and able to use.
As a DM, if a character told you they were holding their shield away from their body to ensure it could not be used for defense you would tell them that they get the shield bonus to AC anyway simply because if they changed their mind they could at some point in the future actually use it?

dude, let's see what i wrote, shall we:
"holding and able to use." you even quoted it...
if they are holding it in such a way that they cannot use it, then, no i will not give them the AC bonus.

note, you don't "wield" a shield, "wield" does not show up with shields or armor at all. geez.
if you are talking about "wielding" stuff, then don't bring up shields. stay on point.
this is why Kadesh is winning, even with a weak argument.



A simple, cursory reading of the feat says while weilding (list of applicable polearms) you can OA when someone enters your reach.

While wielding. It says quite clearly. That's my proof. Where's yours?

Define "wielding".

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think JC has made mention of it, but Mearls has stated (early when 5e started) that Polearm Master must use the weapon that allowed the trigger (which is why you can't use War Caster + PAM to cast something like Command).

Huh. See, that would make sense.

[AHF]

dude, let's see what i wrote, shall we:
"holding and able to use." you even quoted it...
if they are holding it in such a way that they cannot use it, then, no i will not give them the AC bonus.

note, you don't "wield" a shield, "wield" does not show up with shields or armor at all. geez.
if you are talking about "wielding" stuff, then don't bring up shields. stay on point.
this is why Kadesh is winning, even with a weak argument.




Define "wielding".

Not sure why you are caught up in semantics as we were talking about two forms of defense one of which used the world wield and one which didn’t but which I said both should require use of the item while you said use of the item is irrelevant as long as they are theoretically able to use the item.

To avoid the issue with shields not using the word “wield” we could focus on the second weapon for dual wielding. If the character tells you they could use it for defense but absolutely will not defend themselves with it then you are good with that? They don’t have to actually defend themselves with it in order to get the bonus? This makes sense to you in a good story telling way and satisfies the dictionary definition of “wields” for purposes of two weapon defense?

If you prefer to drop this, explain why you don’t agree with Kadesh’s interpretation if you agree that someone doesn’t need to use a weapon in order to wield it in an attack. When you argue that he is wrong because you must use a PAM weapon but that he is correct that you wield a PAM weapon when you stand there holding it but not using it, it is very confusing.

[NaughtyTiger]

For me, I am using the dictionary definition.



hold and use (a weapon or tool).
"a masked raider wielding a handgun"

"use" is unclear. is the masked raider shooting the gun, brandishing in a threatening manner, holding a gun?


Maybe you can clarify your objection to his interpretation of being able to use fists for PAM AOO if you satisfy the requirement to wield a PAM weapon even if you aren’t using it.

I interpret the AoO rules as the Reach is associated with the weapon you are using for the attack.
I interpret the PAM weapon rules as requiring attacks be made using the PAM weapon.

[AHF]

I interpret the PAM weapon rules as requiring attacks be made using the PAM weapon.

I do too but that derives from the word “wield” for me. Where do you derive that requirement?

[CorporateSlave]

I've looked high and low for a place which states something along the lines of how to resolve opportunity attacks when you have multiple reaches.

Hang on, reading this I think I can make the point more clearly.

Because of the wording of (for example) Reach property, it think it is pretty clear RAW that your reach is a specific term that only applies for specific things.

Essentially, you cannot have "multiple (your) reaches" for the purposes of resolving a specific given effect (in this case an OA).

You can of course wield different one handed weapons that give your different your reach options for specific Attacks (whip 10' and dagger 5', for example). But your reach for an Attack with the dagger would be 5', as it has no special properties that would grant otherwise. Your reach for an Attack with the whip would be 10', as it has the Reach property which states a specific exception of being wielded and used to Attack, it adds 5' to your reach. As in, your reach is ONLY 5' greater (10' total) during the specific conditional instances of 1) wielding the weapon & 2) using it to Attack.

When you are using a Reach weapon to make an OA, the RAW for Reach has now extended your reach to 10'. The your reach of 5' is simply no longer the your reach for this OA, and if your reach is 10' now then the OA does not qualify as provoked per PAM's RAW.

Look, everyone else (including apparently Mike Mearls - reference anyone?) seems to think this way, therefore the burden of proof would be on you to provide a RAW reference as to why your specific exception of using the your reach of one type of melee Attack for the qualifying condition of a different your reach weapon's melee Attack.

Going back to my earlier example of multiple your reach options by Dual Wielding a whip and dagger, what you're saying is akin to "I'm going to use the reach of my dagger to Attack with my whip."

[NaughtyTiger]

Not sure why you are caught up in semantics
when people quote "RAW" the whole thing is semantics.


second weapon for dual wielding. If the character tells you they could use it for defense but absolutely will not defend themselves with it then you are good with that? They don’t have to actually defend themselves with it in order to get the bonus? This makes sense to you in a good story telling way and satisfies the dictionary definition of “wields” for purposes of two weapon defense?

no. if they tell me that in no way are they going to use the weapon for defense, then I will not give them the bonus.
by strict reading of the text and rules, they would still get the bonus.
but this is a role playing game, and player's word matter.

[CorporateSlave]

I do too but that derives from the word “wield” for me. Where do you derive that requirement?

Possibly because the RAW Feat description says: "You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:"

It isn't completely unreasonable to say that this means the benefits are limited to your use of reach weapons, although then they ought to clear up the language somehow because the inclusion of spear and quarterstaff are not actually reach weapons. Or at least, they lack the Reach property.

[AHF]

"use" is unclear. is the masked raider shooting the gun, brandishing in a threatening manner, holding a gun?


It depends on what you are talking about. To commit the crime if assault through wielding a gun, you could brandish it in a threatening manner. To commit the crime of battery wielding a gun, you must fire it into the other person or strike the other person using it.

You could not commit either crime by simply walking along with a gun hidden in your pocket despite the fact that you are able to fire it at any time. You must use it to some end.

Use in the context of attacking someone means firing the gun at that person or using it to attempt to strike someone with it. Simply carrying it on your person with the ability to use it doesn’t equate to wielding a gun to effectuate an attack on them.

A simpler way of saying that is that you haven’t attacked someone wielding a gun if you attempt to punch them while you have a gun on you. You have wielded your fist to attack them regardless of whether you had other weapons on you. If you shoot at them or attempt to hit them with the butt of the gun, you have wielded the gun to attack them.

[AHF]

Possibly because the RAW Feat description says: "You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:"

It isn't completely unreasonable to say that this means the benefits are limited to your use of reach weapons, although then they ought to clear up the language somehow because the inclusion of spear and quarterstaff are not actually reach weapons. Or at least, they lack the Reach property.

My copy of the player’s handbook has the earlier language that makes it more obvious by stating: “While you are wielding a [PAM weapon], other creatures provoke an OA from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.”

I see that as tying out twice by require wielding of the weapon with the attack and tying reach to the PAM weapon. If you eliminate both the requirement of using the PAM weapon from the meaning of “wield” and the reach connection to the PAM weapon (the latter of which Crawford and company did with their update), then I don’t see where a requirement of using a PAM weapon derives from the text.

[NaughtyTiger]

It depends on what you are talking about. To commit the crime if assault through wielding a gun, you could brandish it in a threatening manner. To commit the crime of battery wielding a gun, you must fire it into the other person or strike the other person using it.

You could not commit either crime by simply walking along with a gun hidden in your pocket despite the fact that you are able to fire it at any time. You must use it to some end.

Use in the context of attacking someone means firing the gun at that person or using it to attempt to strike someone with it. Simply carrying it on your person with the ability to use it doesn’t equate to wielding a gun to effectuate an attack on them.

So, you said per the dictionary definition of wield:
you can brandish it, (holding it and not attacking)
you can attack with it, (holding it and attacking)

but you also said
having your hand on the trigger inside your pocket ready to fire at any time, is not weilding (holding it and not attacking).
having it your hand visible (holding it and not attacking) while stabbing someone with your other hand, is not wielding.

you have contradicted yourself

the ONLY definition that is consistent:
holding it and able to use it to attack.

[AHF]

So, you said per the dictionary definition of wield:
you can brandish it, (holding it and not attacking)
you can attack with it, (holding it and attacking)

but you also said
having your hand on the trigger inside your pocket ready to fire at any time, is not weilding (holding it and not attacking).
having it your hand visible (holding it and not attacking) while stabbing someone with your other hand, is not wielding.

you contradicted yourself again.

the ONLY definition that is consistent:
holding it and able to use it to attack.

You are finding contradictions where none exist. Simply stating that doesn’t make it so.

Wielding it must require use. Identify the use and you find what is being wielded.

The use required for assault is different than the use required for battery.

You contradict yourself with your own ruling on dual wielding above. To wield something requires more than the ability to use it.

You wield fists as part of an attack when you make the attack. You aren’t wielding your fists in an attack if you never use them. If you did, every attack in existence taking place withing arm’s tech would take place wielding your fists.

[NaughtyTiger]

You are finding contradictions where none exist. Simply stating that doesn’t make it so.
Wielding it must require use. Identify the use and you find what is being wielded.
The use required for assault is different than the use required for battery.

Dueling fighting style, you are only wielding 1 weapon, holding the other.
You have convinced me, you can attack with a longsword and hold a whip, and get the +2 bonus damage.




My copy of the player’s handbook has the earlier language that makes it more obvious by stating: “While you are wielding a [PAM weapon], other creatures provoke an OA from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.”.

But they have since removed that language and gone to a less strict language... which is actually a point in Kadesh's favor. You have convinced me, Kadesh is right.

[AHF]

But they have since removed that language and gone to a less strict language... which is actually a point in Kadesh's favor. You have convinced me, Kadesh is right.

Did you never have any basis for originally having a different view than him? I am giving you my reading and you never have agreed with my reading yet you have said you disagreed with his multiple times.

If you are being serious then are you also up for the next logical step of the two AOO on the same target without that target ever leaving the reach of your PAM weapon?

You also need to reverse your own ruling and grant the +1 AC to people who tell you they aren’t using the second weapon to defend themselves because you keep saying actual use is irrelevant to wielding and wielding is all that is required.

[NaughtyTiger]

You also need to reverse your own ruling and grant the +1 AC to people who tell you they aren’t using the second weapon to defend themselves because you keep saying actual use is irrelevant to wielding and wielding is all that is required.

No, I don't. You don't actually read anything I write.

I was explicit, let me quote:

no. if they tell me that in no way are they going to use the weapon for defense, then I will not give them the bonus.
by strict reading of the text and rules, they would still get the bonus.
but this is a role playing game, and player's word matter.

by RAW, they still get the bonus.
but I am playing a roleplaying game and helping to create a world for them.
As DM, I am free to change, ignore, or create rules as I need to in order to make the game fun.
I will allow a player to be stupid, even in the rules don't.

I am done with you now.

[AHF]

No, I don't. You don't actually read anything I write.

I was explicit, let me quote:


by RAW, they still get the bonus.
but I am playing a roleplaying game and helping to create a world for them.
As DM, I am free to change, ignore, or create rules as I need to in order to make the game fun.
I will allow a player to be stupid, even in the rules don't.

I am done with you now.


Look I haven’t insulted you here once but if you think I’ve made some type of personal attack then I apologize. You’ve described me or things I’ve written negatively three or four times but I don’t think I’ve gone after you but if it came across that way then let me formally say it wasn’t intended.

If you are still willing to talk, I’m genuinely curious about a number of your thoughts on issues that you left unaddressed, especially what area of the text you think conflicts with Kadesh’s interpretation if you are strictly viewing this RAW. You’ve intimated a couple of times that you think a PAM weapon is needed by RAW in order to use the PAM AOO but not articulated what part of the text that derives from. I think it is obvious from a plain reading of the text but you disagree with that reading and never agreed with it so you must have had some other basis.

I’ve acknowledged that I understand your problem with my definition of wield. I saw where you were going with the dueling fighting style and acknowledged that my read is problematic if you read the text a certain way, specifically reading the word “wield” into the second clause (problematic in the same sense we are talking about on this thread where you end up with a result that is clearly not the intent of a game feature). I don’t think dueling is intended to function that way and don’t think a RAW reading compels it but I get the argument.

You rejected the definition of wield I am using because it requires actual use of the weapon and not merely the potential to use the weapon. You believe that leads to an absurd result under the dueling feature. I get that.

If you now agree with Kadesh’s interpretation, I am legitimately interested why you don’t see that as also leading to an equally absurd result where you can use non-PAM weapons to make PAM AOOs (indeed you never need use a PAM weapon at all to access the AOO under Kadesh’s reading, you just need to hold it per your definition of wield) and logically would get multiple AOOs in certain situations even when the target never leaves your PAM weapon reach.

I still strongly think the natural reading and RAW reading of the text requires use of a PAM weapon but would love to fundamentally understand where you come out on this as you are a good poster on the site. Again, apologies for my writing getting sloppy between quick posts and returning to work and if the series of posts came across as antagonistic. That wasn’t my intent.

[Pex]

GITP Forum: Alright Pex, you may have gotten people riled up about your tyrannical DM lectures. We've had enough of your rants against the 5E Ability check system. You can't possibly stir up any more trouble than that.

Pex: Hold my Mountain Dew.

[CorporateSlave]

GITP Forum: Alright Pex, you may have gotten people riled up about your tyrannical DM lectures. We've had enough of your rants against the 5E Ability check system. You can't possibly stir up any more trouble than that.

Pex: Hold my Mountain Dew.


Dang, you win. :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

GITP Forum: Alright Pex, you may have gotten people riled up about your tyrannical DM lectures. We've had enough of your rants against the 5E Ability check system. You can't possibly stir up any more trouble than that.

Pex: Hold my Mountain Dew.

I've been trying to find a way to state that RAW can quaff on the this feat with out getting reported

[KorvinStarmast]

Pex: Hold my Mountain Dew.

When fortified by grain alcohol, it's a fine tipple. :smallcool:

[MThurston]

Pam makes your reach 10 ft.

Enemy enter your reach at 10ft and you swing and they have to stop.

On the next turn they move 5 ft and you want to hit them again.

Anyone see an issue with this? Is this how we are playing?

Sounds like DMs need to start giving Sentinel and PAM to all bad guys.

[Kadesh]

I'll let you think about that, before I answer.

[GlenSmash!]

When fortified by grain alcohol, it's a fine tipple. :smallcool:

You see it's little gems like this that make me glad I frequent threads I know I shouldn't.

[MThurston]

I just wish DMs would make people pay for taking broken feats.

Why are we always attacked by spell users and archers?

Talk to your PAM/Sentinel Paladin!

[NaughtyTiger]

I just wish DMs would make people pay for taking broken feats.

Why are we always attacked by spell users and archers?

Talk to your PAM/Sentinel Paladin!

Are you suggesting that DMs should punish players for making strong characters?
If that is the case, the DMs should instead block the offending feats.

More likely, you are saying that DMs should change up the scenarios so that each PC has opportunity to be challenged and each PC has opportunity to shine.

[Zalabim]

But they have since removed that language and gone to a less strict language... which is actually a point in Kadesh's favor. You have convinced me, Kadesh is right.
This whole stupid argument could have been diverted if someone would actually check the print edition of AHF's version, since that more strict language is different from the original wording that's in the first edition and D&D Beyond. They didn't remove that language. They added it.

[NaughtyTiger]

This whole stupid argument could have been diverted if someone would actually check the print edition of AHF's version, since that more strict language is different from the original wording that's in the first edition and D&D Beyond. They didn't remove that language. They added it.

Please provide the relevant text for each version of PHB (including pg number if you can), country of origin, and the year of printing. Cuz your statement is opposite of what others have said.

[MThurston]

Are you suggesting that DMs should punish players for making strong characters?
If that is the case, the DMs should instead block the offending feats.

More likely, you are saying that DMs should change up the scenarios so that each PC has opportunity to be challenged and each PC has opportunity to shine.

A DM shouldn't walk people right into people's Polearms. Anytime a Polearm is used the enemy should expect PAM/Sentinel.

The enemy isn't stupid.

[Bloodcloud]

2nd OA from 10 to 5 ft with polarm master?

We got some powergamer here...

It is obviously wrong, the arguments in favor of the 2nd OA are clearly misguided and in bad faith.

Pure RAW reading with extreme parsing are absurd and lead to absurd results. No surprise here.

I really need to dig out and post my old Law interpretation course presentation, some people here need to learn some actual rule reading principles.

[NaughtyTiger]

A DM shouldn't walk people right into people's Polearms. Anytime a Polearm is used the enemy should expect PAM/Sentinel.

The enemy isn't stupid.

You suggested that the DM should attack the party with ranged weapons because the a party member has PAM. Because a PC with PAM exists, suddenly the world is all casters and archers. The word got out that 1 guy learned PAM, so everyone else just learned to shoot a bow reallly well. Thugs are out, everyone retrained to be highly dexterous or super smart.

I suggested the DM should change up the enemy tactics now and then..

You responded that anytime a polearm is used, monsters should assume that they will be hit upon entering 10ft range. So even if the PC doesn't have PAM, the monsters should stay out of range of a polearm and not enter melee. Just for holding a pike. My wizard will now hold a glaive at your table

Feats and abilities are a meta concept. It isn't like there is a trainer saying, "today, I am going to teach you PAM, young grasshopper"

[NaughtyTiger]

2nd OA from 10 to 5 ft with polarm master?

Do you mean 2nd OA in a round? No one is saying that. Everyone explicitly shot that down.

Do you mean an OA when someone leaves 5ft (short sword) and then another round the OA when someone leaves 10ft (with the whip in his other hand)? Becuase that is a reasonable interpretation of the RAW, and JC said that was RAI.

Do you mean an OA with PAM when someone enters 10ft (glaive) and then another round an OA when someone enters the 5ft (with glaive or kick)? Because, that is a plausible interpretation of the RAW; although, only Kadesh defended it as explicit RAW.


Pure RAW reading with extreme parsing are absurd and lead to absurd results.
No one disagrees with that. Kadesh has stated that many times. But his point is why argue RAW if you aren't going to strictly read RAW.



We got some powergamer here...


No wrong way to D&D friend.

[MThurston]

You suggested that the DM should attack the party with ranged weapons because the a party member has PAM. Because a PC with PAM exists, suddenly the world is all casters and archers. The word got out that 1 guy learned PAM, so everyone else just learned to shoot a bow reallly well. Thugs are out, everyone retrained to be highly dexterous or super smart.

I suggested the DM should change up the enemy tactics now and then..

You responded that anytime a polearm is used, monsters should assume that they will be hit upon entering 10ft range. So even if the PC doesn't have PAM, the monsters should stay out of range of a polearm and not enter melee. Just for holding a pike. My wizard will now hold a glaive at your table

Feats and abilities are a meta concept. It isn't like there is a trainer saying, "today, I am going to teach you PAM, young grasshopper"

You can also rush the PAM buy. Only one will be stopped. The other 3 or 4 can then surround the PAM and hit him with advantage until he is down.

[GlenSmash!]

You can also rush the PAM buy. Only one will be stopped. The other 3 or 4 can then surround the PAM and hit him with advantage until he is down.

I do something similar as a player. My Barbarian will take a step back from enemies to trigger an AoO and eat up their reaction, so my squishier party members can freely step back without taking damage.

I'd rather take the damage than have my warlock do so, or even lose out on a key spell being cast that round because he disengaged.

[stoutstien]

You can also rush the PAM buy. Only one will be stopped. The other 3 or 4 can then surround the PAM and hit him with advantage until he is down.where is the advantage from? Flanking?

[MThurston]

Pack tactics.

[Coranhann]

Just asking, but PAM allows you to make an AoO on someone when he enters your character's reach?

Kadesh argument is that you have 2 reach, one at 10" thanks to Polearm, one at 5" thanks to unarmed attack.

But the rules never cover how to handle having two reach.
One can argue that you can use both in a distinct fashion. The rules never specify that, but it is simply logic: I have two reach, I can use both to trigger my feat.
One can also argue that, since the target is already within your character's 10" reach, it is not entering it again when moving within 5". Because while it is moving within unarmed strike's reach, it was already within another of your character's reach and, as such, within reach. That is also logic, and there is no part in the rules contradicting it. Reach never states you can chose to "turn off" your character enhanced reach when he holds a Polearm.

Meaning the while argument is now pure rules interpretation. And as such, left to DM discretion?

Right?

[MThurston]

Just asking, but PAM allows you to make an AoO on someone when he enters your character's reach?

Kadesh argument is that you have 2 reach, one at 10" thanks to Polearm, one at 5" thanks to unarmed attack.

But the rules never cover how to handle having two reach.
One can argue that you can use both in a distinct fashion. The rules never specify that, but it is simply logic: I have two reach, I can use both to trigger my feat.
One can also argue that, since the target is already within your character's 10" reach, it is not entering it again when moving within 5". Because while it is moving within unarmed strike's reach, it was already within another reach of your character and, as such, within reach. That is also logic, and there is no part in the rules contradicting it. Reach never states you can chose to "turn off" your character enhanced reach when he holds a Polearm.

Meaning the while argument is now pure rules interpretation. And as such, left to DM discretion?

Right?

And I argue that when you attack a target do you give them a unarmed strike?

[Coranhann]

The feat doesnt care about the weapon used. It cares about entering reach.

Edit: and let's be clear, I think that once a target is within reach, it is within reach and will not enter reach again until it actually leaves reach.

[Pex]

Anyway, the idea is playing a variant human hexblade bladelock, at 8th level I want the War Caster, Spell Sniper, Pole Arm Master combo to take advantage of the synergy with Booming Blade. It's a lot just for one spell, but the feats are useful in their own right. If there's doubt the DM already said the double range from Spell Sniper will work for Booming Blade so the combo will work for the game. I already have War Caster. The question is do I take Spell Sniper or Pole Arm Master first at 4th level.

Spell Sniper: Ignore cover and increase Eldritch Blast range. Just because I'm a bladelock doesn't mean I'm forbidden to use the Cantrip. I'll have Agonizing Eldritch Blast as any other warlock. I have versatility for melee or range attack as needed. I can still use a shield for a few more levels. I have no interest in Eldritch Spear invocation. Another Cantrip is a ribbon, probably Chill Touch for when I need to stop regeneration.

Pole Arm Master: Since I will be in melee I get the extra attack early. The feat makes me a threat coming at me or leaving me. I'll have Armor of Agathys and Blur so I'm not too worried about not having a shield. I'm not bothering asking about quarterstaff/spear & shield with the feat. There's also Darkness when I don't have to worry about party members. I'll have Devil's Sight of course.

I'm leaning towards Pole Arm Master first because I read so much talk about it on these Forums, not just this thread, I want to try it myself to get a better idea what the fuss is all about and see if I actually like to play it. I'll listen to opinions.

The min/maxer in me is satisfied because we rolled for stats. I already have an 18 in CH, so he's letting me experiment taking the feats. 14 DX and CO too if it matters. :smallyuk:

[NaughtyTiger]

Anyway, the idea is playing a variant human hexblade bladelock, at 8th level I want the War Caster, Spell Sniper, Pole Arm Master combo to take advantage of the synergy with Booming Blade. It's a lot just for one spell, but the feats are useful in their own right. If there's doubt the DM already said the double range from Spell Sniper will work for Booming Blade so the combo will work for the game. I already have War Caster. The question is do I take Spell Sniper or Pole Arm Master first at 4th level.

Spell Sniper: Ignore cover and increase Eldritch Blast range. Just because I'm a bladelock doesn't mean I'm forbidden to use the Cantrip. I'll have Agonizing Eldritch Blast as any other warlock. I have versatility for melee or range attack as needed. I can still use a shield for a few more levels. I have no interest in Eldritch Spear invocation. Another Cantrip is a ribbon, probably Chill Touch for when I need to stop regeneration.

Pole Arm Master: Since I will be in melee I get the extra attack early. The feat makes me a threat coming at me or leaving me. I'll have Armor of Agathys and Blur so I'm not too worried about not having a shield. I'm not bothering asking about quarterstaff/spear & shield with the feat. There's also Darkness when I don't have to worry about party members. I'll have Devil's Sight of course.

I'm leaning towards Pole Arm Master first because I read so much talk about it on these Forums, not just this thread, I want to try it myself to get a better idea what the fuss is all about and see if I actually like to play it. I'll listen to opinions.

The min/maxer in me is satisfied because we rolled for stats. I already have an 18 in CH, so he's letting me experiment taking the feats. 14 DX and CO too if it matters. :smallyuk:

PAM is so powerful. and fun, that preAttack is so satisfying... plus Armor of A, punish anyone who touches you.

[Zalabim]

Please provide the relevant text for each version of PHB (including pg number if you can), country of origin, and the year of printing. Cuz your statement is opposite of what others have said.
First edition, printed in the USA, 2014. Page 168, second bullet under Polearm Master says "While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quar-terstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach." Others never checked the print order, but this is the earliest wording I know. I don't have AHF's book.

[Kadesh]

A DM shouldn't walk people right into people's Polearms. Anytime a Polearm is used the enemy should expect PAM/Sentinel.

The enemy isn't stupid.
Any time a guy is wearing robes, someone should expect to be meteor swarmed too, right?

[MThurston]

If the enemy attacks my group, the guy in the robes will fireball you.

100% correct.

[Kadesh]

If the enemy attacks my group, the guy in the robes will fireball you.

100% correct.

So if my Fighter with no Spellcasting levels puts on Robes, he can cast a 9th level spell summing Meteors, simply because he is wearing robes?

[MThurston]

So if my Fighter with no Spellcasting levels puts on Robes, he can cast a 9th level spell summing Meteors, simply because he is wearing robes?

If your fighter is wearing robes and stands back looking like he can cast spells, then 100% he has spells.

If your wizard is wearing the fighters armor and holdings Polearm then he 100% has PAM.

[CantigThimble]

If your fighter is wearing robes and stands back looking like he can cast spells, then 100% he has spells.

If your wizard is wearing the fighters armor and holdings Polearm then he 100% has PAM.

Do any NPCs in the world have the polearm master feat? Does every NPC with a halberd have it?

If so, then your statements make sense for your world.

If not, then they don't. Due to the fact that they rely on polearm master being so ubiquitous that how it works and what tactics are effective against it are common knowledge for practically everyone who knows how to fight. Or alternatively rely on NPCs magically being able to tell who the PCs are on sight.

[MThurston]

Do any NPCs in the world have the polearm master feat? Does every NPC with a halberd have it?

If so, then your statements make sense for your world.

If not, then they don't. Due to the fact that they rely on polearm master being so ubiquitous that how it works and what tactics are effective against it are common knowledge for practically everyone who knows how to fight. Or alternatively rely on NPCs magically being able to tell who the PCs are on sight.

So your group is matched up to fight another group of PCs.

One of your opponents is in robes and the other in Plate that has a Polearm.

What do you assume?

[CantigThimble]

So your group is matched up to fight another group of PCs.

One of your opponents is in robes and the other in Plate that has a Polearm.

What do you assume?

Regardless of what I would assume, what matters is what my character would think.

How would my character know they're PCs? How would my character know what PCs are? Has my character ever seen PAM used and does he have any reason to assume that his current opponent has the same kind of skills?

[stoutstien]

If your fighter is wearing robes and stands back looking like he can cast spells, then 100% he has spells.

If your wizard is wearing the fighters armor and holdings Polearm then he 100% has PAM.
DND- where the dragons are colour coded and the humanoids have uniforms. For player convenience of course.

[MThurston]

Regardless of what I would assume, what matters is what my character would think.

How would my character know they're PCs? How would my character know what PCs are? Has my character ever seen PAM used and does he have any reason to assume that his current opponent has the same kind of skills?

SMH.

Finding ways not to answer correctly.

[NaughtyTiger]

Finding ways not to answer correctly.

finally, we agree. you are working waay too hard to find ways to answer incorrectly.
thank you for admitting it.

[CantigThimble]

SMH.

Finding ways not to answer correctly.

Right, because it's not that I think this way because I value verisimilitude or internal logical consistency, I'm just trying to come up with answers that mess with your rhetorical questions.

[stoutstien]

SMH.

Finding ways not to answer correctly.
He is stating that all players, DM included, has a equal responsibly in regard to the level of immersion. If a player takes PAM/sentinel and the DM makes every npc avoid them we have started the groundwork for player versus DM mentality.

[CorporateSlave]

First edition, printed in the USA, 2014. Page 168, second bullet under Polearm Master says "While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quar-terstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach." Others never checked the print order, but this is the earliest wording I know. I don't have AHF's book.

D&D Beyond (theoretically ought to be the most up to date, their online reference materials) has the same wording (regarding reach): "While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach." It has the updated inclusion of spear though, so it does seem to be up to date.


2nd OA from 10 to 5 ft with polarm master?

We got some powergamer here...

It is obviously wrong, the arguments in favor of the 2nd OA are clearly misguided and in bad faith.

Pure RAW reading with extreme parsing are absurd and lead to absurd results. No surprise here.

I really need to dig out and post my old Law interpretation course presentation, some people here need to learn some actual rule reading principles.

Carefully considering other context in published game rules and revisions, I have come around to thinking that an OA from 10 to 5 ft may be reasonable as an interpretational reading of RAW, however only if it is an unarmed strike with a reach 5'. You are not entering the your reach of the pole arm, so I can't find any RAW reference that makes me think you can OA with something other than the reach of the something that provoked the OA But the feat may be intended to allow the minor fringe benefit of an unarmed strike opportunity using the logic of 'you can use the shaft of the pole arm to fend off the opponent as well as the pointy bit.'

The converse example - a character is wielding a reach weapon, do they get an OA with that reach weapon if the enemy moves from 5' to 10'? Who would say "yes?" The rule for reach states you must add 5' when determining provoking an OA with a reach weapon. 10' has not left a pike (for example's) reach, therefore the pike cannot be used to OA. You might be able to make a case to the DM that since the enemy has left your kick (unarmed, 5' reach) range, it has provoked an unarmed OA. Of course, it would be a rare circumstance since most players would be anticipating using their single Reaction for pole-arm OA the enemy when he moves out of 10'. But I guess it could come up if you knew the enemy was only likely moving 5' away, say to melee attack an ally nearby.

[MThurston]

Just so we are very clear in the type of thinking I find in this site.

A DM running enemies into a PAM/Sentinel is what is expected.

But a DM that rolls randomly to see who people engage in combat (when fighting style defense is taken) is wrong.

Got it.

I'll even go further in explaining the above.

Two melee fighter standing next to each other with PAM&S have two enemies charge them and then charge them again. All because the feats they picked are great.

The enemy didn't learn from the first time so they will blindly charge into the slaughter.

Now let's talk about defense style.

A fighter stands next to a rogue and are charged by two enemies. The fighter has defense and can make one of them hit the rogue at disadvantage.

The DM attacks the fighter twice and if the DM is rolls randomly for the enemy next to the rogue to see who he attacks, the DM is being lame.


PAM&S = The DM runs stupid enemies into them.

Fighting Style Defense = The enemies always know that the fighter has defense so they only attack the fighter.

Oh, and to top it off, the enemy never knows that the feats PAM&S are ever taken.

Got it, great good by the DMs.

[stoutstien]

Just so we are very clear in the type of thinking I find in this site.

A DM running enemies into a PAM/Sentinel is what is expected.

But a DM that rolls randomly to see who people engage in combat (when fighting style defense is taken) is wrong.

Got it.

I'll even go further in explaining the above.

Two melee fighter standing next to each other with PAM&S have two enemies charge them and then charge them again. All because the feats they picked are great.

The enemy didn't learn from the first time so they will blindly charge into the slaughter.

Now let's talk about defense style.

A fighter stands next to a rogue and are charged by two enemies. The fighter has defense and can make one of them hit the rogue at disadvantage.

The DM attacks the fighter twice and if the DM is rolls randomly for the enemy next to the rogue to see who he attacks, the DM is being lame.


PAM&S = The DM runs stupid enemies 8nto them.

Fighting Style Defense = The enemies always know that the fighter has defense so thry only attack the fighter.

Oh, and to top it off, the enemy never knows that the feats PAM&S are ever taken.

Got it, great good by the DMs.
Thank you for fine examples of false dichotomy or black/white fallacy.

What we do know:
A DM has the knowledge of player's character capabilities Or should at least have a rudimentary idea.
The DM most actively decide how NPCs react to said capabilities. Random rolls for targeting is a way for DM to ensure they aren't influencing that reaction but now we have the issue of removing the NPCs immersion and narrative influence.

A hobgoblin might recognize that the enemy with the pole arm is locking down the line so may break away to attack with a bow or attempt to maneuver around them.
At the same time the horde of zombies may walk right into the meat blender fighter.

So yes, rolling random targets is kinda lame in most instances. You remove the ability for the game and players to react to each other.

[NaughtyTiger]

Just so we are very clear in the type of thinking I find in this site....
snip



Hi, welcome to the forum, i recommend reading the 5e PHB first thing.

Defense fighting style adds +1 to your AC. Protection fighting style allows you to impose disadvantage on a single attack against an adjacent ally.

Additionally, your post makes no sense. You appear to be comparing two different types of inept DM by applying two unrelated scenarios.
Perhaps pick a single issue related to PAM and save the "Protection"/Rogue issue for another conversation.

[CantigThimble]

Just so we are very clear in the type of thinking I find in this site.

A DM running enemies into a PAM/Sentinel is what is expected.

But a DM that rolls randomly to see who people engage in combat (when fighting style defense is taken) is wrong.

Got it.

I'll even go further in explaining the above.

Two melee fighter standing next to each other with PAM&S have two enemies charge them and then charge them again. All because the feats they picked are great.

The enemy didn't learn from the first time so they will blindly charge into the slaughter.

Now let's talk about defense style.

A fighter stands next to a rogue and are charged by two enemies. The fighter has defense and can make one of them hit the rogue at disadvantage.

The DM attacks the fighter twice and if the DM is rolls randomly for the enemy next to the rogue to see who he attacks, the DM is being lame.


PAM&S = The DM runs stupid enemies into them.

Fighting Style Defense = The enemies always know that the fighter has defense so they only attack the fighter.

Oh, and to top it off, the enemy never knows that the feats PAM&S are ever taken.

Got it, great good by the DMs.

(Assuming you mean protection not defense)

It seems like what's going on here is that you're listing points from several arguments you've had with several different people as if they were all the ideas of one person, and then pointing out that those views don't add up. And you are correct there, those views don't all add up. The reason for that is that those are individual points from a bunch of different people who disagree with eachother on various things. Not everyone who disagrees with you agrees with eachother.

So, regardless of what others have said about anything these are my views on this topic:
All characters in the world, PC or NPC should act according to their in-character personalities and in-character knowledge as best they can. If I'm playing NPCs who have never seen PAM then they won't act as if they know how it works.

If I'm playing a PC who knows nothing about demons, I won't have my character act as if he knows their abilities, resistances and weaknesses.

How exactly an NPC decides who to target depends on context and on that NPC. A soldier will choose his target differently than a bandit or a wild animal. (If there is really no reason for an NPC to pick one target over the other, then I'm not bothered by rolling to randomly pick one.) If those NPCs had no previous knowledge or experience with PAM or Protection, they would act without taking those abilities into account. However, once they saw those abilities in action they learn and adapt. How exactly they did that, would again depend on what kind of NPC they were.

Against S/PAM, Soldiers or bandits might switch to ranged attacks after seeing the ineffectiveness of a melee rush. Or disengage and then rush in close. Wild animals might back up or make a rush as a large group to get past their guard. A crazed ogre raider might actually just keep charging into the same trick over and over again.

Disclaimer: I am not accusing anyone of bad player/DM if they deviate from how I play. The only criteria for being a bad player/DM is if people aren't having fun and don't want to continue the game with you, and even then it might just be a difference in preferred style rather than someone actually being objectively bad. I only advocate for these methods because they help me to enjoy the game more and I hope they will do the same for others. Terms and conditions apply.