Can polearm master's BA attack work with quarterstaff + a shield?

[samcifer]

So I want high defense on a warforged battlesmith artificier, but I'd also like to use PA with a quarterstaff and a shield. Can you perform a bonus action attack with a quarterstaff while also wielding a shield?

[nickl_2000]

So I want high defense on a warforged battlesmith artificier, but I'd also like to use PA with a quarterstaff and a shield. Can you perform a bonus action attack with a quarterstaff while also wielding a shield?

By both RAI and RAW absolutely. There is no rule at all that says you need two hands to make that bonus attack.


Some DMs/players consider it cheesy though, so YMMV.

[Man_Over_Game]

The question really is, why couldn't you?

Many DMs opt to require the weapon to be held with both hands to get the BA attack, but that's more for balance through DM fiat than anything supported by the rules.

TL,DR: Yes, you can.

[ZiddyT]

The question really is, why couldn't you?

Many DMs opt to require the weapon to be held with both hands to get the BA attack, but that's more for balance through DM fiat than anything supported by the rules.

TL,DR: Yes, you can.

"For balance" is a weird way to say "a forced sense of verisimilitude expected only of martial characters for some reason."

[Jamesps]

The question really is, why couldn't you?

Many DMs opt to require the weapon to be held with both hands to get the BA attack, but that's more for balance through DM fiat than anything supported by the rules.

TL,DR: Yes, you can.

Most GMs I've talked to don't care about the balance issue so much as how ridiculous it looks to use a staff and a shield. Fortunately they errated PAM to work with spears, so now you can pull off the combo without looking goofy.

[samcifer]

Cool. I want a BS artificier who with his steel defender and homunculous servant, gets 5 attacks per turn with PM. :)

[DarknessEternal]

Cool. I want a BS artificier who with his steel defender and homunculous servant, gets 5 attacks per turn with PM. :)


You'd need 3 bonus actions for that, ie, you can't.

[stoutstien]

"For balance" is a weird way to say "a forced sense of verisimilitude expected only of martial characters for some reason."

Verisimilitude and balance are different in this aspect. Pam completely over shadows TWF with less investment on top of the flexibility to apply it to GWM for a low risk(1d4) high reward (+10) damage. once you add the easy to achieve reaction attack it becomes a feat tax and not an option.

[samcifer]

You'd need 3 bonus actions for that, ie, you can't.

The H. Servant and S. Defender get their own turns after mine in initiative. It says so in the Artificier chapter in E:RftLW

Taken from the DND beyond character creator:

"Steel Defender. In combat, the steel defender shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take one of the actions in its stat block or the Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, or Search action."


and for H. Servant:

"In combat, the homunculus shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take the action in its stat block or the Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, or Search action."

So I take my turn, get 2 attacks as my action and a third as my bonus action, then they each get a turn and one action each for 5 attacks per round not counting possible OAs.

[nickl_2000]

The H. Servant and S. Defender get their own turns after mine in initiative. It says so in the Artificier chapter in E:RftLW

Taken from the DND beyond character creator:

"Steel Defender. In combat, the steel defender shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take one of the actions in its stat block or the Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, or Search action."


and for H. Servant:

"In combat, the homunculus shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take the action in its stat block or the Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, or Search action."

So I take my turn, get 2 attacks as my action and a third as my bonus action, then they each get a turn and one action each for 5 attacks per round not counting possible OAs.

No, there is a problem in your logic.

You get
Action: 2 attacks
Bonus Action:
This can be used to

Use PAM to make a bonus action attack
Command your Steel Defender
Command your homunculus


You can't combine the bonus actions, it's one of those three. Pick the one and that is what you get that round.

[Diego]

... but it takes its turn immediately after yours. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes on its turn is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it ..."

I'm still not seeing how you get it to attack without using your bonus action on your own turn. Which costs you your PAM attack.

[Arkhios]

Personally I'm only against it because it's unfair towards two-weapon fighting. You get the benefit of using a shield and a weapon, and still you get to make an attack as a bonus action equivalent to two-weapon fighting and you even add your ability modifier on the damage roll "for free" (compared to two-weapon fighting which needs a fighting style to do the same). It doesn't matter how big the damage die is for the bonus action attack. It's unfair from action economy perspective. In this sense, unfair equals unbalanced.

While I understand that both RAI and RAW seem to support the function, I don't. And as a DM I forbid it unless you wield quarterstaff in two hands. As a player, you bet I'm going to exploit a loophole in system if it's allowed. But I won't go on a fit if not.

[samcifer]

Okay, yeah, both pets say you have to use your bonus action to command them to attack, otherwise they won't do so. Damn. :/

[kazaryu]

"For balance" is a weird way to say "a forced sense of verisimilitude expected only of martial characters for some reason."

in what way is verisimilitude expected only of martials?

[JoeJ]

So I want high defense on a warforged battlesmith artificier, but I'd also like to use PA with a quarterstaff and a shield. Can you perform a bonus action attack with a quarterstaff while also wielding a shield?

In my game, no because I've changed quarterstaff from versatile to two-handed so you can't use it with a shield at all, but RAW, yes you can.

[Hytheter]

Most GMs I've talked to don't care about the balance issue so much as how ridiculous it looks to use a staff and a shield. Fortunately they errated PAM to work with spears, so now you can pull off the combo without looking goofy.

I don't follow, the bonus attack is clearly more absurd with a spear than a staff.

[sithlordnergal]

Yes, is can, its a weapon style I use on one of my Paladins. If possible, snag Shillelagh too, to make the staff into a d8 weapon while using it in one hand. Due to the wording, you can still choose to use Strength as your attack modifier instead of wisdom, while keeping the d8 damage. Though it doesn't change the d4 damage from the bonus attack.

I do feel I need to warn you that some DMs dislike it, because they find the idea to be very silly. Personally, I don't get how its silly...but then I'm also a DM that doesn't see why Druids have a taboo on wearing metal armor and allow them to do so...But hey, nothing against RAW or RAI with this strategy, so usually you should be good to go.

[diplomancer]

Okay, yeah, both pets say you have to use your bonus action to command them to attack, otherwise they won't do so. Damn. :/

Though I believe they still can make opportunity attacks, so at least they add some control.

[Matticusrex]

Personally I'm only against it because it's unfair towards two-weapon fighting. You get the benefit of using a shield and a weapon, and still you get to make an attack as a bonus action equivalent to two-weapon fighting and you even add your ability modifier on the damage roll "for free" (compared to two-weapon fighting which needs a fighting style to do the same). It doesn't matter how big the damage die is for the bonus action attack. It's unfair from action economy perspective. In this sense, unfair equals unbalanced.

While I understand that both RAI and RAW seem to support the function, I don't. And as a DM I forbid it unless you wield quarterstaff in two hands. As a player, you bet I'm going to exploit a loophole in system if it's allowed. But I won't go on a fit if not.

Balancing things around TWF is a horrible idea, it was a badly designed mechanic in 5.e and shouldn't be used to hold any martials back from trying to be decent. Casters dont have to deal with crap like that while making martials look like sub-par choices.

[Arkhios]

Balancing things around TWF is a horrible idea, it was a badly designed mechanic in 5.e and shouldn't be used to hold any martials back from trying to be decent. Casters dont have to deal with crap like that while making martials look like sub-par choices.

I prefer to view this on the premise that if they let TWF function like that, they shouldn't let anything similar function any better. I agree TWF is bad, but that's how it works, so if some other rule steps on TWF turf in that same actions cause similar but better results, it does a disservice to TWF as it emphasizes how bad TWF actually is.

Polearm Master does this already, regardless of any houserules. If feats are on table, Polearm Master is strictly better than TWF at what it does: An attack as a Bonus Action when you also take the Attack Action. Functionally, it's the same thing.

With quarterstaff (or spear) it's functionally same as if you were using a shortsword and a dagger (ignoring their damage types), except you also get to add ability modifier to damage rolls with both and you can use a Shield at the same time. All without needing the fighting style either.

[diplomancer]

I prefer to view this on the premise that if they let TWF function like that, they shouldn't let anything similar function any better. I agree TWF is bad, but that's how it works, so if some other rule steps on TWF turf in that same actions cause similar but better results, it does a disservice to TWF as it emphasizes how bad TWF actually is.

Polearm Master does this already, regardless of any houserules. If feats are on table, Polearm Master is strictly better than TWF at what it does: An attack as a Bonus Action when you also take the Attack Action. Functionally, it's the same thing.

With quarterstaff (or spear) it's functionally same as if you were using a shortsword and a dagger (ignoring their damage types), except you also get to add ability modifier to damage rolls with both and you can use a Shield at the same time. All without needing the fighting style either.

Dual wielding IS worse than spear and shield, which is the reason there have been, throughout different periods of military history with different weapons technology, plenty of examples of fighting with spear and shield, and almost none of dual wield fighting. There is no reason to make an inferior fighting style the measuring standard of fighting styles. Dual wielding is for those who think it looks cool and don't care that much about the mechanics. It performs admirably in that regard (arguably better than it should if verisimilitude was a consideration).

Besides, there is a corner case where 2 weapon fighting is still superior, the disarm option. Disarm a polearm master (and if it is a one-handed staff or spear, it is not hard to do) and, unless the DM is overly permissive with carrying weapons, he has to attack you now with an inferior weapon. Disarm someone with 2 weapon fighting and he can still attack normally, just losing his bonus action attack. Disarming the opponent also allows for an almost free disengage if that's the only weapon they are carrying, not so much if they are fighting with two weapons.

[kazaryu]

Dual wielding IS worse than spear and shield, which is the reason there have been, throughout different periods of military history with different weapons technology, plenty of examples of fighting with spear and shield, and almost none of dual wield fighting. There is no reason to make an inferior fighting style the measuring standard of fighting styles. Dual wielding is for those who think it looks cool and don't care that much about the mechanics. It performs admirably in that regard (arguably better than it should if verosimilitude was a consideration).

emphasis added


If dnd were in any way simulationist id agree with you. But its not.

The argument that 'irl twf is bad, so its ok for it to be bad in dnd' is just plain silly. Twf is a mechanical choice in the game, so it should mechanically be on par. And in its current state its not. You need both the fighting style and the dual wieldign feat. As opposed to just the feat for PM.

Point being that PM does something that is ordinarily twf territory, but does it better, with a slightly lower investment. Now, arguably thats because twf is weak in and of itself (except for on rogues) and needs to be buffed.

[diplomancer]

emphasis added


If dnd were in any way simulationist id agree with you. But its not.

The argument that 'irl twf is bad, so its ok for it to be bad in dnd' is just plain silly. Twf is a mechanical choice in the game, so it should mechanically be on par. And in its current state its not. You need both the fighting style and the dual wieldign feat. As opposed to just the feat for PM.

Point being that PM does something that is ordinarily twf territory, but does it better, with a slightly lower investment. Now, arguably thats because twf is weak in and of itself (except for on rogues) and needs to be buffed.

Bolded part is where we disagree. Not everything needs to be on par. Should fighting with bare fists be mechanically on par with fighting with weapons? Should fighting wearing just regular clothes be mechanically on par with fighting in Plate Armor? D&D already makes those choices closer than they would be (which is a good thing), but there is no obligation to put them exactly balanced.

The game is balanced enough that having slightly inferior choices to fulfill a character concept does not make you useless. In this particular case, for instance, 2 weapon fighting is possible with Dex or Str builds, while Polearm Master is only possible with Str builds (or with monks, that gain less than others from Polearm Master anyway). So, if you want a melee dex-build (which has other advantages), 2 weapon fighting is still a good enough choice (it's one of the best choices for single-class melee rogues, and also very helpful on Tenser Transformation).

The recent alternative class features UA also made two-weapon fighting more viable, in a way, simply by letting players start with it and then switch for a different style once it begins to lose it's power as you get more attacks.

[Arkhios]

In a vacuum, we can't just ignore that the rule for Two-Weapon Fighting exists, however bad the design is. It's a basic rule and it exists even without allowing feats, such as Polearm Master. Feats are an optional rule, and they should not be judged as generic rules. Whether you like it or not, TWF rule sets the generic rule for its type of rules interaction. Thus, TWF takes precedence before Polearm Master when it comes to game balance.

Class features also take precedence before feats, because classes exist on their own even without allowing feats. Thus, Two-Weapon Fighting Style takes precedence before Polearm Master when it comes to game balance.

All characters, regardless of size, race, or class are able to use two-weapon fighting. Assuming you're proficient with Shields, in general all characters are able to use a weapon and a shield. But they can't do both.

D&D follows a philosophy of "Specific over Generic", where the outermost layer (in other words, the most recent rule) matters the most.
IF feats are allowed, they are on the outermost layer, and in that case, they do count more, in a way. But they are also in spotlight when it comes to game balance, feats must be able to fall in line with the balance.
For comparison, basic rules are on the innermost layer. They are the core on which everything else is built upon.

When discussing game balance, real life logic fallacies matter absolutely nothing. This is an abstract game we're talking about. Games must have rules or they break down under their own weight and just don't work.

[stoutstien]

In a vacuum, we can't just ignore that the rule for Two-Weapon Fighting exists, however bad the design is. It's a basic rule and it exists even without allowing feats, such as Polearm Master. Feats are an optional rule, whether you like it or not, and they should not be judged as generic rules. Whether you like it or not, TWF rule sets the a generic rule for its type of rules interaction. Thus, TWF takes precedence before Polearm Master when it comes to game balance.

Class features also take precedence before feats, because classes exist on their own even without allowing feats. Thus, Two-Weapon Fighting takes precedence before Polearm Master when it comes to game balance.

All characters, regardless of size, race, or class are able to use two-weapon fighting. Assuming you're proficient with Shields, in general all characters are able to use a weapon and a shield. But they can't do both.

D&D follows a philosophy of "Specific over Generic", where the outermost layer (in other words, the most recent rule) matters the most.
IF feats are allowed, they are on the outermost layer, and in that case, they do count more, in a way. But they are also in spotlight when it comes to game balance, feats must be able to fall in line with the balance.
For comparison, basic rules are on the innermost layer. They are the core on which everything else is built upon.

When discussing game balance, real life logic fallacies matter absolutely nothing. This is an abstract game we're talking about. Games must have rules or they break down under their own weight and just don't work.

If only if the two weapon fighting feat followed this paradigm. Polearm mastery is as powerful, if not more powerful, than taking a stat bump. Two weapon fighting feat is only a valid option if said stat is already maxed. It scales backwards.

[Arkhios]

If only if the two weapon fighting feat followed this paradigm. Polearm mastery is as powerful, if not more powerful, than taking a stat bump. Two weapon fighting feat is only a valid option if said stat is already maxed. It scales backwards.

True, kind of. Dual Wielding is also, technically, equivalent to increasing an ability score because it grants a bonus to AC (kinda like if you took +1 on an odd Dexterity, or a +2 on an even Dexterity, and you were wearing light or medium armor), except it applies only when you're wielding two weapons, which is not a small drawback.

Dual Wielder is definitely worse than Polearm Master, however.

That comparison actually proves that feats are the part of rules that would've needed much closer inspection to make them all more balanced.
In my honest opinion, Polearm Master is not perfectly balanced; it has a flawed loophole that makes it ridiculously good.

That said, two-weapon fighting rule could be done better. I can't tell how, but I feel it might be doable.

[Hytheter]

True, kind of. Dual Wielding is also, technically, equivalent to increasing an ability score because it grants a bonus to AC (kinda like if you took +1 on an odd Dexterity, or a +2 on an even Dexterity, and you were wearing light or medium armor), except it applies only when you're wielding two weapons, which is not a small drawback.

Dual Wielder gets you +1 AC and +1 damage.

+2 Dex gets you +1 AC and +1 damage... and +1 to hit, and +1 Initiative, and +1 to Dex saves and Dex based skills. In other words, the same as Dual Wielder plus way more.

They are definitely not equivalent.

[diplomancer]

In a vacuum, we can't just ignore that the rule for Two-Weapon Fighting exists, however bad the design is. It's a basic rule and it exists even without allowing feats, such as Polearm Master. Feats are an optional rule, whether you like it or not, and they should not be judged as generic rules. Whether you like it or not, TWF rule sets the a generic rule for its type of rules interaction. Thus, TWF takes precedence before Polearm Master when it comes to game balance.

Class features also take precedence before feats, because classes exist on their own even without allowing feats. Thus, Two-Weapon Fighting takes precedence before Polearm Master when it comes to game balance.

All characters, regardless of size, race, or class are able to use two-weapon fighting. Assuming you're proficient with Shields, in general all characters are able to use a weapon and a shield. But they can't do both.

D&D follows a philosophy of "Specific over Generic", where the outermost layer (in other words, the most recent rule) matters the most.
IF feats are allowed, they are on the outermost layer, and in that case, they do count more, in a way. But they are also in spotlight when it comes to game balance, feats must be able to fall in line with the balance.
For comparison, basic rules are on the innermost layer. They are the core on which everything else is built upon.

When discussing game balance, real life logic fallacies matter absolutely nothing. This is an abstract game we're talking about. Games must have rules or they break down under their own weight and just don't work.

The Xanathar Ranger subclasses are better than the PHB subclasses. The Hexblade (also in Xanathar) is better than all the patrons in the PHB, even more so as a dip. The Battlesmith pet works better than the Beastmaster's pet (at least without the recent UA). All 2nd level spells in Xanathar are better than Find Traps. To make an extreme case, fighting with bare fists (a core option) is worse than all the weapon feats in the game. Therefore, we can see that the principle "if the core rules are mechanically weak, no optional rule can give mechanically superior options" is, thankfully, not part of the game design philosophy. My opinion is that PAM users and 2 weapon users are sufficiently different conceptually that the fact that one is slightly better than the other under most situations is not relevant. The very fact that PAM users tend to be Str characters and 2WF users tend to be Dex characters is sufficient to justify the existence of the two different concepts.

And you have not even addressed the fact that, even with PAM, two-weapon fighting still has niches: the melee rogue, the dex paladin (as an aside, an easy way to have more two weapon users would be to give to Paladins the two weapon fighting style), the switch-hitter Fighter or Ranger, the Tenser Transformed wizard or bard, the player concerned with being easily disarmed, all this with no consideration for magic item distribution. Furthermore, with the new UA, it's actually a solid choice for damage at lower levels, being possible to trade it out later.

Finally, a question about the bolded part. Are you claiming that allowing PAM to work with spear and staff as intended breaks D&D 5e and make it not work?

[Arkhios]

Dual Wielder gets you +1 AC and +1 damage.

+2 Dex gets you +1 AC and +1 damage... and +1 to hit, and +1 Initiative, and +1 to Dex saves and Dex based skills. In other words, the same as Dual Wielder plus way more.

They are definitely not equivalent.

Absolutely equal? Definitely not. But "kind of", as I said in the first place. In other words: close, but not quite there.

[Arkhios]

Finally, a question about the bolded part. Are you claiming that allowing PAM to work with spear and staff as intended breaks D&D 5e and make it not work?

Well, no. The game doesn't explode or evaporate or anything like that. But it raises a question why is Polearm Master a better option for multiple attacks than TWF even if you take Dual Wielder feat.

I mean, I understand that feats add a little extra on top of base rules. But that much is just too much.

Besides, the paragraph with your bolded part was more in response to using real life logic as an argument in order to justify a certain balance between two different rule concepts.

[stoutstien]

Well, no. The game doesn't explode or evaporate or anything like that. But it raises a question why is Polearm Master a better option for multiple attacks than TWF even if you take Dual Wielder feat.

I mean, I understand that feats add a little extra on top of base rules. But that much is just too much.

I came to the opposite realization. TWF needs to catch up to PaM/SS/GWM.

[samcifer]

I would say that TWF was created to compensate classes that lacked the extra attack feature, but all the classes that DO have 2 weapon fighting also have extra attack, so who knows what the developers were thinking. I still don't see why TWF is viewed as such a bad play mechanic though. It seems fine to me even though having to take a feat to have access to more weapons is kind of dumb.

[Jamesps]

I don't follow, the bonus attack is clearly more absurd with a spear than a staff.

Only when you're attacking. The staff and shield is goofy looking all the time. If you were to do a goofy bar graph based on time spent looking goofy the staff and shield would tower over the spear and shield.

Also, you can reflavor the bonus action attack as a punch using the weight of the haft to add heft to the punch if you want. It's not tactically a great idea in the real world, but it would look cool at least.

[Lunali]

I don't follow, the bonus attack is clearly more absurd with a spear than a staff.

The bonus attack is more absurd with spear than staff, but just wielding a spear and shield is less absurd (to the point of being downright common historically) than a quarterstaff and shield.

[stoutstien]

The bonus attack is more absurd with spear than staff, but just wielding a spear and shield is less absurd (to the point of being downright common historically) than a quarterstaff and shield.

staff and shield was used widely during the bronze age due to cost at rarity of having both copper and tin for the alloy on top of how brittle and soft it was due to poor purity content. there is a lot of historical text about 10,000 spears entering combat and 500 spears leaving. sling staff units tend to carry shields and were known to enter in combat at closer ranges as well. once socket technology and iron smelting became common staffs in large scale battle became rarer but still used by guards and in dueling and is believed to influence famous styles like jousting.

reality is stranger than DnD will ever be.

[micahaphone]

For further verisimilitude proponent arguments, many cultures have martial arts that fight with some length of stick. One such art, Filipino Martial Arts (we can go off topic for pages with the naming debate), will use a 1 handed stick, held about 80% of the way down. If the stick is ~30 inches long, you have a small 2 inch bit sticking out of the bottom of your fist, the punyo. There are methods of striking that focus on utilizing that bit. If I had a player who was going stick & shield, I'd conceptualize them as doing some sort of punyo strike,or other smaller backhand strike as a part of their main swing, hence it only having a D4+str of damage.

And a stick that only attacks things in sword range (5 feet in game terms) is easily holdable in one hand. And as stoutstein pointed out, hitting a person with the blunt end of your polearm is a lot more ridiculous than this. If a person is standing next to you, you slash them up with your ax-head-on-a-8-foot-pole, then you're going to helicopter the entire weapon around to give them a little tap? That's a lot easier to do with a smaller weapon.

[NorthernPhoenix]

The RAW answer is yes, but I personally wouldn't ever allow it.

[Edenbeast]

Just adding my two cents in this recurring discussion... The argument of the historical context of spear+shield, or staff+shield for that matter, I've heard before. This is fine, spear+shield was indeed common in ancient history, but it is bad reasoning in favour of the bonus attack granted by PAM...
Spears were cheap to make, and (including staffs) maybe the common man's weapon. And, I guess for some time in history also the only weapon in armies before other type of weapons came in play. Spears work well in shield walls, due to their reach. You can use the spear to stab from behind the shield, holding it somewhere at the bottom of the shaft to gain the reach required. I think what makes the spear so versatile is that you can make a trade-off between more defence using a shield, or drop the shield and wielding it in two hands dealing more damage. This way, you can use both hands to add more balance and force behind the stabbing motion, and use the bottom shaft to knock someone's teeth out or punch him in the knee.
I don't see how, for example, in close quarters, one-on-one, a spear+shield would be more effective than a short sword+shield, which is what PAM is implying, or letting the spear wielder have the same amount of attacks as a short sword and dagger wielder...
Gandalf with his staff, or those crazy moves by a marital artist with Bo, those are attacks worth a bonus action attack.

[Edenbeast]

For further verisimilitude proponent arguments, many cultures have martial arts that fight with some length of stick. One such art, Filipino Martial Arts (we can go off topic for pages with the naming debate), will use a 1 handed stick, held about 80% of the way down. If the stick is ~30 inches long, you have a small 2 inch bit sticking out of the bottom of your fist, the punyo. There are methods of striking that focus on utilizing that bit. If I had a player who was going stick & shield, I'd conceptualize them as doing some sort of punyo strike,or other smaller backhand strike as a part of their main swing, hence it only having a D4+str of damage.

Those sticks are shorter than quarterstaffs. And generally the styles that involve one stick either have another weapon such as a dagger or an empty hand that allows for the moves you describe..

[micahaphone]

Those sticks are shorter than quarterstaffs. And generally the styles that involve one stick either have another weapon such as a dagger or an empty hand that allows for the moves you describe..

5e makes a lot of weapons fit under one catagory, the quarterstaff is the stick fighting weapon. Think of how many different swords fit under the definition of longsword in 5e.

If a 5e quarterstaff fits the wikipedia definition of a 6-9 foot (1.8 - 2.7 meter) stick, how the hell are you fighting one-handed with one of those? would we count a shillelagh (the weapon not the spell) as a quarterstaff or a club?

yes, the moves used with a 1 handed stick make use of your empty hand or smaller extra weapon, but some of those moves could be replicated with a shield.

----------------------

And just to make sure I'm understanding the argument against the one-handed bonus action attack correctly, the argument is that the stick and shield compares favorably to the feat Dual Wielder, with the following breakdown:

staff & shield:
1d6 (attack action) & 1d4 (bonus action), +2 AC

short sword & dagger:
1d6 & 1d4, +1 AC

So using a quarterstaff and shield is better than a short sword and dagger.
But the Dual Wielder feat would also let you dual wield longswords/warhammers/etc

2x longsword:
1d8 & 1d8, +1 AC

so I guess the trade off is a potentially bigger BA damage dice for 1 AC. Admittedly I have a harder time with the verisimilitude of a character using 2 longswords over the concept of a character using a quarterstaff and shield. And I also agree with the general sentiment that TWF is underpowered, even with the feat.

[stoutstien]

From a balanced perspective the only thing that's bothered me about the polearm master bonus action attack is it shouldn't get the stat modifier added to it automatically.
Remove that and a slight change the twf rules and it's fine.

[kazaryu]

Bolded part is where we disagree. Not everything needs to be on par. Should fighting with bare fists be mechanically on par with fighting with weapons? Should fighting wearing just regular clothes be mechanically on par with fighting in Plate Armor?
These two things are a separate discussion. Theres a difference between deliberately forgoing utilizing all your options. (I.e. just choosing to not equip a weapon) and having an option presented to you, but having it be mechanically inferior. If the phb had been released with an unarmed fighting style, then yes, it should be mechanically on par. In fact there is a class built around not using a weapon. And there are 2 classes built around unarmored defense

D&D already makes those choices closer than they would be (which is a good thing), but there is no obligation to put them exactly balanced. yeah..i mean what kind of scrub expects balance out of a multiplayer game...its not like...its axiomatic or anything.

Seriously though, its widely agreed that multiplayer games (even non competitive ones) should generally be balanced, if you've got an opposing assertion, then you should actually back it up withnsome type of argument


The game is balanced enough that having slightly inferior choices to fulfill a character concept does not make you useless. i didnt say imbalance was gamebreaking. And now, to slightly contradict my previous statement, ill grant you, achieving perfect balance, while theoretically ideal, is not actually always ideal. In some cases its probably not worth the effort. However, thats not to say balance shouldnt be a goal, but its kot like failing to achieve a perfectly balanced game is gonna break the game.

Now: all of that being said: twf isnindisputably a weaker choice than PM (although twf+dual wielding is actually on par at least as far as on your turn. The question becomes if the relatively free opportunity attack is worth thebsame amount as +1ac) And that is a minor travesty. However, fighters are thebonly ones for whom its actually subpar compared to great wespon fighting (the other pure damage focused fighting style). And even then only after lvl 11. And *even then* its only by like..2 damage. The difference doesnt really get significant until lvl 20.

[Laserlight]

It doesn't work at my table. Per RAW it does but we all know RAW is sometimes stupid.

The real answer is "why are you asking us rather than your DM?"

[DarknessEternal]

If a 5e quarterstaff fits the wikipedia definition of a 6-9 foot (1.8 - 2.7 meter) stick, how the hell are you fighting one-handed with one of those?

Gandalf did it for 6 movies, and he's a wizard. I'd suspect a fighter would be able to pull it off too.

[Theodoxus]

The gamist in me says 'sure, why not?'
The simulationist in me says 'oh hell no, I've larped trying to swing a staff one handed; you're not getting anywhere near the power to actually do any damage on a one-handed back swing.'

D&D is a game, not a simulation. The gamist wins.

I do kinda think it's silly to compare combat styles and weapons that are disparate throughout history.

As mentioned upthread, a classic Florentine style (rapier/dagger - to use 5E terms) wouldn't be seen in military combat. It's nigh unto useless on the battlefield - archers alone would pick you apart for sport. But it is pretty iconic in a the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser style of storytelling D&D is famous for. And as such, TWF shouldn't really be a fighter's fighting style, and basically be relegated to rangers (for a melee bruiser) and rogues (for a swashbuckling feel). As such, I'd happily allow a rogue's sneak attack to deal full damage on the main hand and half damage on the off hand. (yes, two sneak attacks potentially a turn!) But only 1 sneak per weapon (so, no extra attack (feature, magic, whatever) ever grants another sneak attack if the first one hits.)

For Rangers (the only class that would have TWF as a fighting style), I'd allow each attack be mirrored with an offhand attack as part of the bonus action.

I'd also have a caveat that TWF doesn't work beyond the 1st extra attack (so a fighter 11/ranger 9 build would get 3 main attacks, but only 2 attacks on a bonus action; the same a fighter would get at 20th level); and that TWF does not work with sneak attack. (else everyone would go Ranger 5/Rogue 15 for maximizing sneak dice with 4 attacks a round...)

(I'd probably actually make TWF a ranger enclave specific ability, probably Hunter, so dipping actually has consequences. In the same vein, I'd remove all consideration of action economy from the beastmaster. Because reasons.)

[Man_Over_Game]

I've always been partial to the idea of trading out the BA attack to allow you to spend your BA to extend your reach with that weapon by 5ft until your next attack or the start of your next turn.

You still keep the Reaction attack.

So now polearms are a tactical upgrade rather than a numerical one. If you want dumb damage, go GWM.

[stoutstien]

I've always been partial to the idea of trading out the BA attack to allow you to spend your BA to extend your reach with that weapon by 5ft until your next attack or the start of your next turn.

You still keep the Reaction attack.

So now polearms are a tactical upgrade rather than a numerical one. If you want dumb damage, go GWM.

Conceptually I really like this idea. I'd have to really sit down and look at it and make sure it works. Could see a weird combo with bugbear and booming blade or whirlwind attack.

Probably make the reaction attack not a AOO and make the attack from sentinel an actual AOO to showcase each better.

[micahaphone]

Gandalf did it for 6 movies, and he's a wizard. I'd suspect a fighter would be able to pull it off too.

You fool, you've started up the debate again! The mods just banished "what class is gandalf in dnd" back to the shadows, and now it's surely back!


I mostly remember him swinging a sword in his right and doing spellcasting in his left. Did he ever get clobbering with the staff?

To be honest, it's been way too many years since I've watched the lotr movies. Looks like you've given me an excuse to do something fun this weekend!

[Arkhios]

You fool, you've started up the debate again! The mods just banished "what class is gandalf in dnd" back to the shadows, and now it's surely back!


I mostly remember him swinging a sword in his right and doing spellcasting in his left. Did he ever get clobbering with the staff?

To be honest, it's been way too many years since I've watched the lotr movies. Looks like you've given me an excuse to do something fun this weekend!

In the movies, or at least in Return of the King, when Sauron's armies attack, on the walls of Minas Tirith, he does indeed clobber with the staff and swing the sword simultaneously a few times.

However, LotR isn't based on D&D and neither is D&D based on LotR. Gandalf being called a wizard within LotR's own "setting" isn't by any means authoritative that he's a wizard in D&D terms. Likewise, D&D or WotC do not own the rights to determine what the term "wizard" means, or vice versa. End of debate.

[Witty Username]

If TWF is the problem with PAM I would be more inclined to boost the dual wielder feat, maybe giving a +2 to ac instead of +1. Maybe only if off-handing a light weapon if balance is a concern, and rapier dagger would exist.

[Arkhios]

If TWF is the problem with PAM I would be more inclined to boost the dual wielder feat, maybe giving a +2 to ac instead of +1. Maybe only if off-handing a light weapon if balance is a concern, and rapier dagger would exist.

I won't refute that would be more ideal. However, boosting a feature is more difficult than nerfing another to (literally) fall in line with TWF, and risks causing more balance issues later.

Besides, requiring a spear or quarterstaff to be wielded in two hands for PAM to use the bonus action is rather small nerf, which shouldn't cause this much debate, for crying out loud.

[Man_Over_Game]

If TWF is the problem with PAM I would be more inclined to boost the dual wielder feat, maybe giving a +2 to ac instead of +1. Maybe only if off-handing a light weapon if balance is a concern, and rapier dagger would exist.

For longevity, it might be worth to find a way to remove the Bonus Action use entirely from Two Weapon Fighting, in order to allow Ranger features and spells to see use with it.

Mike Mearls had an interesting take on it, to have TWF instead deal it's weapon damage to the first enemy you hit each turn. So a dagger adds 1d4 each turn. The problem is, this almost strictly outperforms Versatile in almost every way.

I'd just take it one step further and say that once per turn, when you make an attack roll with a weapon, you can attack with a different weapon you're holding with the Light trait, as long as the attack is against a different target that's adjacent to your first.

Works with almost all tropes, deals spread damage where Versatile offers Single-target, and still opens up options for Ranger and other BA builds.

I do remember reading from the real questions thread a real legendary samurai wrote that you should wield a weapon with one hand if the target is easy, a weapon with two hands if he's difficult, or a weapon in each if you have multiple targets.

So now it's got versimilitude, too

[diplomancer]

For longevity, it might be worth to find a way to remove the Bonus Action use entirely from Two Weapon Fighting, in order to allow Ranger features and spells to see use with it.

Mike Mearls had an interesting take on it, to have TWF instead deal it's weapon damage to the first enemy you hit each turn. So a dagger adds 1d4 each turn. The problem is, this almost strictly outperforms Versatile in almost every way.

It does in damage, sure (not by much though, usually 0.5 damage per attack without the feat. I would not add any damage for a magic second weapon though) but the worse AC is surely enough to make it still worse than dueling.

I like this solution. I believe tieing TWF to a bonus action was a design mistake (because now every single new bonus action that gets added to the game competes with it). Maybe the best solution is to just change the TWF style to be just to give you *as another option* to not use a bonus action and just add the weapon damage to your first attack (adding magic weapon damage, maybe to different creatures on the attack to balance it out). When you take that option, you cannot make a weapon attack with your bonus action. So, when you do not have any use for your bonus action you can have good damage, but if you DO have a good use for it you can still add some damage (slightly more than dueling, compensating for the worse AC)

For me, the problem with PAM spear/staff is not really the comparison with 2 weapon fighting, because the 2 concepts are different enough to have little competition between them. It's the comparison with sword (or battleaxe, warhammer, etc...) and shield. Spear and shield and Long Sword and Shield are similar builds, but the lack of an offensive feat support to Sword and Shield means that the only reason for a Str character to use a sword instead of a spear is magic items. Considering that a Long Sword is a martial weapon and a spear is a simple weapon, this is a problem.

That said, the solution is not to nerf PAM (unless you start nerfing casters as well), but to create different feats that give offensive support to sword and shield.

[Arkhios]

That said, the solution is not to nerf PAM (unless you start nerfing casters as well), but to create different feats that give offensive support to sword and shield.

I don't follow. Why such a small change to PAM warrants nerfing casters as well (that is, requiring two versatile weapons to be held in two hands, each, in order to benefit from a feature that also works with three other weapons that must be held in two-hands anyway). What's it to spellcasters if you change 20%* of a feat that has nothing to do with spellcasting by default? Besides. It's a Feat. An optional rule.

* Polearm Master has two bullet points. That's two halves of 100%.
From the other half, only 2/5 eligible weapons would get the treatment.

[diplomancer]

I don't follow. Why such a small change to PAM warrants nerfing casters as well (that is, requiring two versatile weapons to be held in two hands, each, in order to benefit from a feature that also works with three other weapons that must be held in two-hands anyway). What's it to spellcasters if you change 20%* of a feat that has nothing to do with spellcasting by default? Besides. It's a Feat. An optional rule.

* Polearm Master has two bullet points. That's two halves of 100%.
From the other half, only 2/5 eligible weapons would get the treatment.

It's your own perfect balancing brinciple. Unless you claim thag allowing Staff PAM makes martials BETTER than casters, if you nerf them, you should nerf casters to have them balanced.

If, like me, you don't think there is a need for percect balancing, there is no need to nerf PAM, so why do it?

[Arkhios]

It's your own perfect balancing brinciple. Unless you claim thag allowing Staff PAM makes martials BETTER than casters, if you nerf them, you should nerf casters to have them balanced.

If, like me, you don't think there is a need for percect balancing, there is no need to nerf PAM, so why do it?

I find it a bit ironic that you're so adamantly against nerfing "only PAM, but not spellcasters", when you, yourself, said you don't think there's a need for perfect balancing. Since I don't find it necessary to nerf casters along with PAM, by your logic it's imperfect balance. Which, again, according to your own argument, should be OK, right? :smallbiggrin:

At this point all I have left to say about this is: let's just agree to disagree.

[diplomancer]

Well, if you decide to nerf something "for balance sake", you should, just for consistency, nerf everything that's better than the alternatives. Nerf fireball because it's better than lightning bolt. Nerf lightning bolt because it's better than lightning arrow, and so on.

If your reason to nerf something, on the other hand, is "I don't like the way it works", or "it seems unrealistic to me" then, as a purely subjective statement, go right ahead. But don't try to justify it with "I am nerfing it because it's too powerful", specially when the game has other more powerful options than it that you don't plan to nerf.

[Matticusrex]

Well, if you decide to nerf something "for balance sake", you should, just for consistency, nerf everything that's better than the alternatives. Nerf fireball because it's better than lightning bolt. Nerf lightning bolt because it's better than lightning arrow, and so on.

If your reason to nerf something, on the other hand, is "I don't like the way it works", or "it seems unrealistic to me" then, as a purely subjective statement, go right ahead. But don't try to justify it with "I am nerfing it because it's too powerful", specially when the game has other more powerful options than it that you don't plan to nerf.

I agree, even using the crossbow expert + sharpshooter feats to make the arguably strongest martial in the game, you still come out below casters in the combined 3 pillars of power. Casters are the only ones who should ever have considerations for nerfs. Some DMs just dont know how to handle a martial dealing a little extra damage while a wizard completely negates an encounter with a single spell.

[stoutstien]

When discussing the power level of PaM, it is in relationship to other weapons/fighting style combinations and not spells which is a whole different subsystem.

PaM is out of line because it is better than the twf style combined with the twf feat while simultaneously working with GWM and sentinel.

It offers a constant at-will use of bonus action and reaction.

I have nothing against powerful martial abilities but having it tied up in a feat was a bad design move.

[Arkhios]

When discussing the power level of PaM, it is in relationship to other weapons/fighting style combinations and not spells which is a whole different subsystem.

PaM is out of line because it is better than the twf style combined with the twf feat while simultaneously working with GWM and sentinel.

It offers a constant at-will use of bonus action and reaction.

I have nothing against powerful martial abilities but having it tied up in a feat was a bad design move.

I whole-heartedly agree.

All this time, I've only tried to discuss this with Martial prowess in mind.

As for the reason why I've chosen the course of action I've previously presented it's less about PaM being Owerpowered, and more about being unhappy about how it creates a loophole in the system that seems unintentional from Read as Written perspective.

[diplomancer]

When discussing the power level of PaM, it is in relationship to other weapons/fighting style combinations and not spells which is a whole different subsystem.

PaM is out of line because it is better than the twf style combined with the twf feat while simultaneously working with GWM and sentinel.

It offers a constant at-will use of bonus action and reaction.

I have nothing against powerful martial abilities but having it tied up in a feat was a bad design move.

It's worth noting, in this context of talking about PAM (QStaff/Spear), that the synergies of PAM with GWM and Sentinel both either don't exist if you are using a spear or a staff (GWM) or are not as useful (the Sentinel ability of dropping your opponent's speed to 0 is a lot better if he cannot just attack you from where he's standing).

PAM, in itself, is a very powerful feat, but it's probably, of all feats, the one that most depends on the DM providing appropriate Magic Items to achieve it's full power(is it still true that none of the adventure paths published so far by WotC has a magic polearm in its loot?). And if the DM does provide the appropriate magic items, than taking the feat into the balance of his encounters is on him.

[stoutstien]

It's worth noting, in this context of talking about PAM (QStaff/Spear), that the synergies of PAM with GWM and Sentinel both either don't exist if you are using a spear or a staff (GWM) or are not as useful (the Sentinel ability of dropping your opponent's speed to 0 is a lot better if he cannot just attack you from where he's standing)

I should have specified that as 'either or' combos. Usually players want duelist/PaM for higher damage and AC or defense/PaM/GWM for highest damage and ok defense.
The value of sentinel is so DM dependent it hard to really value it but it does work with both styles in its own way.

[ChildofLuthic]

Should fighting with bare fists be mechanically on par with fighting with weapons? Should fighting wearing just regular clothes be mechanically on par with fighting in Plate Armor?

Isn't there a whole class whose schtick is giving players the opportunity to fight using bare fists and regular clothes but still be, ostensibly, mechanically on part with someone fighting in Plate Armor and weapons?

[diplomancer]

Isn't there a whole class whose schtick is giving players the opportunity to fight using bare fists and regular clothes but still be, ostensibly, mechanically on part with someone fighting in Plate Armor and weapons?

There is. I even referred to it obliquely on that very same post, on the sentence you omitted right after the sentence you quoted.

[ChildofLuthic]

There is. I even referred to it obliquely on that very same post, on the sentence you omitted right after the sentence you quoted.

Oh that's what that was. Because in 5e, fighting unarmed and unarmored isn't "closer [to balanced] than it should be," it's outright an option that is mostly equal, albeit with some caveats, and it's explicitly designed to be as such. And the reason for that is that 5e cares less about verisimilitude than making sure that you can pick options based on what appeals to you aesthetically and not have to worry too much about if it makes your character useless.

[diplomancer]

Oh that's what that was. Because in 5e, fighting unarmed and unarmored isn't "closer [to balanced] than it should be," it's outright an option that is mostly equal, albeit with some caveats, and it's explicitly designed to be as such. And the reason for that is that 5e cares less about verisimilitude than making sure that you can pick options based on what appeals to you aesthetically and not have to worry too much about if it makes your character useless.

That was exactly my point. It does bring it closer (though it's still worse both at damage and AC, it compensates in other ways), and that's a good thing, since it allows you to have a balanced enough character that fits your aesthetic vision.

Now, someone with a spear and shield is aesthetically different to someone fighting with two scimitars (TWF has worse AC and damage to PAM staff/spear, but it compensates in other ways, by basically being possible to use it with dex). Because of the *aesthetical* difference, we should worry about the balance being "good enough", which I believe it is, not about it being perfect.

Incidentally, this is why I also think that, if there is a problem with PAM staff/spear, it's not TWF that it's an issue, it's just regular sword and shield, since sword and shield involves martial weapons, while PAM staff/spear doesn't, and because the aesthetic difference is just not big enough to justify it. (Martial weapon) and shield needs some feat support that is sorely lacking (only feat that works with it is shield master, and even that one has been nerfed by Crawford, making it now almost a purely defensive feat).

[Nagog]

"For balance" is a weird way to say "a forced sense of verisimilitude expected only of martial characters for some reason."

Probably because martial abilities exist irl and magic does not? Strength and Dexterity are quantifiable and measurable IRL, whereas magic is, by definition, not. Therefore saying "You effectively wield a polearm weapon without at least 2 points of contact" is understood because that's basic physics, whereas saying something like "Sure, the heat of your Scorching Ray can be felt through the foot thick concrete." because there's the possibility it could be. If it's radioactive heat, one foot of concrete will slightly dampen it, but not stop it, whereas if it's heat like magnified sunlight, it would not penetrate. Unfortunately we do not have people who can shoot fire from their hands irl, so we have no authority to go to to test such things.


Verisimilitude and balance are different in this aspect. Pam completely over shadows TWF with less investment on top of the flexibility to apply it to GWM for a low risk(1d4) high reward (+10) damage. once you add the easy to achieve reaction attack it becomes a feat tax and not an option.

This here is the actual reason why. In my campaigns (the ones I DM), I've outlawed the PAM/GWM combo, but I've freely allowed even some homebrew that can get OP in the wrong hands. PAM/GWM is far too easy to pick up and wreck with, and is often the make-or-break point for a lot of Homebrew steam chats I'm in with how well the homebrew stacks up against such a build. It wildly unbalances the game and can come online as quick as 4th level with V.Human.

[Nagog]

That was exactly my point. It does bring it closer (though it's still worse both at damage and AC, it compensates in other ways), and that's a good thing, since it allows you to have a balanced enough character that fits your aesthetic vision.

Now, someone with a spear and shield is aesthetically different to someone fighting with two scimitars (TWF has worse AC and damage to PAM staff/spear, but it compensates in other ways, by basically being possible to use it with dex). Because of the *aesthetical* difference, we should worry about the balance being "good enough", which I believe it is, not about it being perfect.

Incidentally, this is why I also think that, if there is a problem with PAM staff/spear, it's not TWF that it's an issue, it's just regular sword and shield, since sword and shield involves martial weapons, while PAM staff/spear doesn't, and because the aesthetic difference is just not big enough to justify it. (Martial weapon) and shield needs some feat support that is sorely lacking (only feat that works with it is shield master, and even that one has been nerfed by Crawford, making it now almost a purely defensive feat).

Wait are you saying TWF is comparable to PAM/Sheild because it's based on Dex?
Excuse me while I compose myself, because that's hilarious.

So firstly, stat basis is never something that can make or break a martial build. With the advent of the Hexblade, all martial builds may instantly become SAD, with no more than 1 level of commitment (and the SADness is only one of the many benefits of such a dip). Secondly, I am going to presume you made this argument due to the much higher number of skills that depend on Dex rather than Str's one. But this is for a martial character. Not a rogue or a monk, who have other features to keep up, but for a build made to excel at combat. So another way to phrase what you said is "Two Weapon Fighting is as good as PAM/Shield as long as you don't focus on the fighting aspect of Two Weapon Fighting. And arguably for uch a build, a dependence on Str rather than Dex is optimal, as with a shield and heavy armor (which has a Str requirement), you can reach 20 AC right at the start, a feat which isn't available to Two Weapon Fighting builds at all without magic items (aka Special Treatment).

So while yes, there is no RAW reason the Shield/PAM doesn't work with a spear or staff, I would be absolutely awestruck to see such a thing actually make sense in-canon. For that reason, I'd oust it.

[diplomancer]

Wait are you saying TWF is comparable to PAM/Sheild because it's based on Dex?
Excuse me while I compose myself, because that's hilarious.

So firstly, stat basis is never something that can make or break a martial build. With the advent of the Hexblade, all martial builds may instantly become SAD, with no more than 1 level of commitment (and the SADness is only one of the many benefits of such a dip). Secondly, I am going to presume you made this argument due to the much higher number of skills that depend on Dex rather than Str's one. But this is for a martial character. Not a rogue or a monk, who have other features to keep up, but for a build made to excel at combat. So another way to phrase what you said is "Two Weapon Fighting is as good as PAM/Shield as long as you don't focus on the fighting aspect of Two Weapon Fighting. And arguably for uch a build, a dependence on Str rather than Dex is optimal, as with a shield and heavy armor (which has a Str requirement), you can reach 20 AC right at the start, a feat which isn't available to Two Weapon Fighting builds at all without magic items (aka Special Treatment).

That's a lot of mistakes for one post.

1- No, I am saying that the robe-wearing unarmed monk is a different character concept than the Plate Armor-wearing 2 handed sword wielding Knight, so there is no need to perfectly balance them. "Good enough balance" is sufficient, try to compensate any AC or damage bonus one concept has over the other with more abstract and hard to measure advantages for the other concept. The same idea applies to the PAM staff/spear and the 2WF character concepts. They are sufficiently different visually and conceptually that perfect balance is not needed.

2- so, you dip one level in hexblade. Then what? You start upping your Cha? Congratulations, people like you better now. But how exactly does that help your initiative in combat, or your stealth (which determines surprise... it's quite possible for a 2WF character to have 2 full rounds before the PAM gets to act)? Not at all. If you think it will help you have a PAM character that is also good at range, it won't. With a one level dip you can be cha-based with only 1 weapon, so your best thing is eldritch blast, which without the invocation is no better than other cantrips. A 2-level dip does make you SAD, but that is a significant investment. You just switched from having to max your str to having to max your cha, your dex still sucks. Hexblade dip is good for Paladins or for fighting bards, it's meh for other classes.

3- Rogues and monks are martials in D&D terminology. Rogues, in particular, love 2WF. But even if we are talking about 2 fighters, it's ok for one to be slightly better in combat than the other if he sacrificed out-of-combat utility for it (assuming he is better in combat in the first place... remember the 2 rounds of advantage that the 2WF character may have, and the fact that the 2WF character has a better ranged backup, all this without going into how much more frequent dex saves are than str or cha saves).

4- "you can reach 20 AC right at the start". The game expectation is that, at best, characters will have access to Splint Mail around the end of tier 1, Plate Mail somewhere around the middle of tier 2.

Finally, I saw in your previous post that you subscribe to the "guy at the gym fallacy", that has been used to nerf martials versus casters for a long time in D&D. But if you do believe that verosimilitude should trump game balance, you have no reason to argue that 2WF should be balanced with spear and shield. In real life, spear and shield is considerably better than 2WF. Plate mail and big weapon is considerably better than armorless and weaponless.

[DanyBallon]

If you consider that when it was first released, all PAM weapons were two-handed, with the exception of quarterstaff which is a versatile weapon, thus have a two-handed mode. We can assume that the rules were intended for the bonus action to be used when the weapon was hold with two hands.
In this regard, at my table, it’s not possible to use the PAM bonus action with quarterstaff or spear if used one-handed. In fact, just to prevent any issue, I proposed to my players a modification to PAM where we add that the bonus action applies only when the weapon is held with two hands.

[diplomancer]

If you consider that when it was first released, all PAM weapons were two-handed, with the exception of quarterstaff which is a versatile weapon, thus have a two-handed mode. We can assume that the rules were intended for the bonus action to be used when the weapon was hold with two hands.

What you mean we, whiteface? ;)


There is actually a Crawford tweet from november 2014 that states "The Polearm Master feat doesn't require the quarterstaff to be wielded with two hands." If that interaction was not intended, they've had more than 5 years to correct it. If "we" are going to assume anything, "we" should assume that it's intended to be used one-handed, no matter how much that offends "our" aesthetic sensibility. I'd say the fact that they actually changed the feat to include spears, without changing it to specify that it should be wielded 2-handed, is evidence that that's exactly the intention of the feat.

[CapnWildefyr]

If you consider that when it was first released, all PAM weapons were two-handed, with the exception of quarterstaff which is a versatile weapon, thus have a two-handed mode. We can assume that the rules were intended for the bonus action to be used when the weapon was hold with two hands.
In this regard, at my table, it’s not possible to use the PAM bonus action with quarterstaff or spear if used one-handed. In fact, just to prevent any issue, I proposed to my players a modification to PAM where we add that the bonus action applies only when the weapon is held with two hands.

Very reasonable. (As we know not RAW but makes a heck of a lot of sense! I'll probably add that to my house rules.)

On another note, when comparing feats and even styles, remember that usefulness is also situational. TWF is great when crouching through small goblin tunnels, or inside a castle tower, wheres PAM -- impossible. Both are impossible on horseback, basically (maybe you could one-hand a spear or staff RAW but when riding a horse... DMs call... polearms are infantry weapons). PAM also not good in cities, depending on the DM. If a city watch makes you peace bond a short sword, no way you can carry a glaive or halberd around! SM also could be unusable in cities if you can't carry.the shield--again, a DM thing. So my point here is that the value of the feat or style depends on the campaign and circumstances and character flavor too, not just pure numbers, so yeah, whether one is better or not is relative.