DM Help Polearm Master in hardcover adventures - should the DM add magical polearms? [Archive]

micahaphone

2020-10-18, 01:36 AM

I think it's a great idea - you're not a computer program, you can and should tailor published adventures to better fit your group. We're playing a game to have fun, if your player has communicated to you that they want to focus on using a long & pointy weapon then by god give them one as a reward at some point. Getting a magic item no one can use feels like a weird prank from the DM - a prize that punishes your previous choices.

Some people prefer to keep it to the original items, to not tailor the loot to the party. It increases verisimilitude, it forces your players to think about what to do with their loot, which leads to party agency in their adventure. You got a magic sword but no one uses swords? Better find a buyer, or swap with a collector of magic relics, or something else.

Personally, I don't want to put magic item shops in my dnd settings, and if the party is currently trying to save the world from a demonic invasion / a soul sucking vacuum / tiamat / elemental cults etc the players might feel weird putting their big quest on pause while they travel around looking for a buyer.

MaxWilson

2020-10-18, 01:47 AM

Short of replaying an adventure or outright cheating, how would a player know if a magical weapon has been added by the DM or is included in the published book?

Oh no, is this going to turn into one of those "can players tell when the DM is fudging" discussions?

FWIW, when answering your question I assumed the player would have about as much information as you included in your OP. Whether that's from playing the adventure multiple times, or playing multiple other WotC adventures, or DMing this or other adventures, I don't think it matters.

If you question is about "how much can I conceal from the players?" I think you're going to have to ask people who have actually played with you, not strangers on the Internet. Some people have better poker faces than others.

Mystral

2020-10-18, 05:17 AM

Gtdead

2020-10-18, 05:19 AM

JellyPooga

2020-10-18, 05:53 AM

Avonar

2020-10-18, 06:06 AM

Personally, I really don't like tailoring loot to the player characters. It feels so inorganic. I've tried it as a GM and experienced it as a Player and it's never sat right for me. If there's a good reason why there's a magical spear in amongst an armoury full of dwarven axes, fine. If it's just there by happenstance because one player has PAM...well that just makes me start asking questions.

I'm actually the opposite. If we come across a magic longsword without having a strength-based melee character, there's just a feeling of "Oh, it's there because the book says it is and I guess we can maybe sell it later." That might be fine once or twice, but the official modules are pretty crap for magical weapon variety. If a player wants to play a character that specialises in spears, or halberds or whatever, I don't like the idea of either forcing them to change weapon or them just not getting any magical weapons, especially if they're going down a feat-based route like with Polearm Master.

EggKookoo

2020-10-18, 06:06 AM

Yes, totally. You shouldn't tailor all the equipment to your players, but you should make sure that everyone gets gear that is appropriate to their character and makes them happy. In the same vein, you should cut out that your characters don't need.

FWIW, I tailor treasure toward my PCs all the time. I don't plop it in front of them, but I do place it in the dungeon or hideout or whatever for them to find.

Mystral

2020-10-18, 06:10 AM

Excuse my ignorance but I've never played these adventures (and I probably won't).

Isn't there any other way, like a merchant or something, to get items that fit your build? Are you limited to non magic weapons and drops?

I mean, the players can pool their money and buy something for the martial PC if the option exists. They can also sell the +1 GS to buy a +1 Glaive.

I just don't know if options like that exist, 5e being low magic and all.

It of course depends on the world you're playing in. Something like a "magic mart" isn't very common in most settings, and even then, only in large cities. And a lot of official adventures might not include a city, or even any settlement at all. In general those adventures assume you can make do with what you started with, plus the loot you find when you play well.

Bunny Commando

2020-10-18, 06:18 AM

As a DM, is it preferable to stick to the books, or should magical loot (such as a +1 halberd) be provided to players when not available in the adventure?

I usually slightly tailor the loot to the characters. If no one in the party uses a sword, I will not let them find countless magical swords that no one cares about and never what the characters really need; the keyword here is "slightly" - I will not hand the magic items the characters need as candy, but I will make sure that everyone gets a treat here and there.

And polearms should be exceedingly common weapons on the battlefield, so I believe is quite reasonable that there's a fair share of magical ones.

Elbeyon

2020-10-18, 06:45 AM

Yes, of course. This is a very easy question. Would it be fun for the fighter to never get a magic weapon that they want? If the fighter has a particular weapon they favor that seems like a very strong signal to the dm that they would like to use that weapon. The books will almost never include rarer weapon types because the authors are writing for the typical adventurer and know it is bad form to hand out useless magical weapons no one wants. As a gm you know what your players want though and know that your player does not want to use all those magical swords. Forget what is written in the books and do what is most fun.

Hael

2020-10-18, 07:05 AM

I’m a big believer in transparency early in the campaign. It’s perfectly fine to play in a world where Estocs are rare and indeed might be unique to a single pc character. So that character might never get a magic weapon and he/she should be prepared for that.

I don’t like DM retroactively changing loot tables to cater to pcs.

However, adding poleaxes ab initio to loot tables bc it’s appropriate for the world makes sense, and it’s clear that standard loot tables are notoriously slanted for certain weapons and probably could be balanced more, both for the sake of balance as well as lore. Otherwise Min/maxers can simply do item counts and know that the chance for a magic sword might be an order of magnitude higher than the chance for a magic blowgun and always pick the same weapons.

Just don’t make the decision after the fact.

diplomancer

2020-10-18, 07:06 AM

EggKookoo

2020-10-18, 07:36 AM

I think it's ok to give players what they want, as long as it's not only what they want. If it's something very specific (say, a Holy Avenger Glaive), make them work for it.

Also, there's a difference between a player saying they want X (and the DM deciding whether or not to provide X) and the DM looking at what the PC likes to use and making sure such items are available in the game for the PC to find.

da newt

2020-10-18, 07:38 AM

If you use the magic item crafting rules from Xanthar's, this is a non-issue. If someone creates a build around the hand Xbow or Glaive, then there is a resource cost to make it magical, but it can be done.

I'm of the opinion that it would be wrong for a DM to create a reality that didn't allow for a path to access magic reach weapons or crossbows, but included plenty of magic swords - that just seems unfair to me.

On the other hand, I'm also against catering to a PC too much. "I want a flame tongue vorpal glaive for my PC" - at appropriate level you might run across a frost brand pike ...

I had a DM who homebrewed rules that for a cost and with access to appropriate level spells you could transfer enchantments from one weapon or armor to another. This allowed for some fun stuff while also keeping with the as written treasure and random treasure tables.

JellyPooga

2020-10-18, 07:39 AM

I'm actually the opposite. If we come across a magic longsword without having a strength-based melee character, there's just a feeling of "Oh, it's there because the book says it is and I guess we can maybe sell it later." That might be fine once or twice, but the official modules are pretty crap for magical weapon variety. If a player wants to play a character that specialises in spears, or halberds or whatever, I don't like the idea of either forcing them to change weapon or them just not getting any magical weapons, especially if they're going down a feat-based route like with Polearm Master.

I suppose it depends on how you feature magic items. You would never find a magic longsword you could sell in one of my adventures. It'd be rare, worth more than any honest trader would be able to pay, it would probably be named and have a history and it would also likely have some significance to the setting, if not the plot directly. No-one should shrug at a magic item and throw it in the sale-bin (outside of what I might class as trinket level stuff; potions, minor wondrous items, etc.).

Then again, if you run a game where magic items are super common...eh, knock yourself out. It doesn't matter if you find what you want if you can just part-exchange for it and get the spear of your dreams with 0% finance.

Grek

2020-10-18, 07:52 AM

I feel like a lot of the people posting here missed the context of this being a question about pre-written adventure modules out of a book. They're written with a very small number of specific items in them, based on a mixture of author whim and whatever is thought to be the most 'popular' option available. As a result, you see a whole lot of swords and staves, the occasional bow, dagger or axe and basically no bludgeons, crossbows, throwing weapons, whips or spears. It's not rolled, so there's no 'fudging the dice' here, you're just choosing whether to use the author's group-blind fudging toward the lowest common denominator or substituting your own judgement as a GM.

Gignere

2020-10-18, 08:06 AM

I never understood why written adventures doesn’t just put in more generic loot language. I mean when I write up my own adventures I literally just put down players will find 1 x +1 weapon or +1 armor etc..

I also don’t understand why specific magic items in the DMG are tied to certain types of weapons. Why can’t a spear be a flame tongue or frost brand?

Unoriginal

2020-10-18, 08:13 AM

In most official D&D adventures, there are no magical polearms. This means no magical glaive, halberd, pike, or spear.

The exception is usually quarterstaffs. I noticed there is a surprising high number of magical staves in published adventures. So if someone makes quarterstaff + shield build with the polearm master feat, they'll probably be okay even if the DM sticks to the book.

For a build planning to use glaives / halberds / pikes though, there mostly likely won't be any magical weapon in the adventure they can use. This can be highly problematic when fighting monsters resistant, or flat out immune, to nonmagical weapons.

A similar scenario happens with heavy weapons & the gwm feat, and crossbow expert / SS build.

As a DM, is it preferable to stick to the books, or should magical loot (such as a +1 halberd) be provided to players when not available in the adventure?

If a PC has to do with a weapon outside their specialty for a while, it's not a problem. It's not different that the sword-and-shield Fighter finding a magic maul or the dual-wielding Rogue having to use a silvered rapier because the dungeon's boss is a werewolf.

Might become not fun if it becomes a long-standing state of affair though. Many modules give situations where it's possible to trade magic items or give you the chance to do downtime to do the "trade magic items" downtime options, but if they're stuck in a single dungeon for the whole adventure then I could see including some weapons more fitting for the PC. Or give the player the chance to change their specialization.

I never understood why written adventures doesn’t just put in more generic loot language. I mean when I write up my own adventures I literally just put down players will find 1 x +1 weapon or +1 armor etc..

I also don’t understand why specific magic items in the DMG are tied to certain types of weapons. Why can’t a spear be a flame tongue or frost brand?

Because magic items can exist beyond "generic X power".

If anything the issue is more that they didn't write unique magic weapons for all the types of weapons.

Drascin

2020-10-18, 08:17 AM

Well, it depends. What do you want people to do with magic items?

If your intention is that magic items get used and you think the adventure is designed assuming people will have access to magic items, then yes, you should absolutely tailor loot to your party.

If magic items are just there for flavor and you're genuinely not going to mind (and I mean genuinely not mind, not "well, it's your choice but you're being stupid and you will suffer for it", there is a significant difference) if players go "huh, neat" and just trade them for other things or simply leave them where they found them, you can just use the book ones.

Basically, don't expect players to care for magic items just because they're magic items. If I'm playing an ancestors barbarian with a big honking greataxe, I'm not going to change my aesthetic if the adventure has a +lots longsword! I'm either going to see if anyone would be willing to trade me the longsword for something more my speed, or failing that, I'll just gift it to some NPC I like.

RogueJK

2020-10-18, 10:00 AM

As a DM, is it preferable to stick to the books, or should magical loot (such as a +1 halberd) be provided to players when not available in the adventure?

As a DM, you should be tailoring play to fit your players, even in published materials. If the module calls for a magic item of a type that nobody in your party would/could use, it's kind of a no-brainer to swap it out for something that they can use. (Or at least give them the opportunity down the road to exchange/sell it for something else that they can use.)

However...

This can be highly problematic when fighting monsters resistant, or flat out immune, to nonmagical weapons.

Not really. There's never a strict requirement for the DM to hand out magical weapons in every campaign. Not doing so can be extra challenging, depending on the frequency they're encountering these types of enemies, but there are a number of other ways for players to overcome the challenge when faced with monsters that require magic weapons to hit.

These include class abilities such as:
-Artificer's Enhanced Weapon Infusion
-Forge Cleric's Blessing of the Forge
-Arcane Archer's Magic Arrow
-Sword Warlock's Pact Weapon
-Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon
-Moon Druid's Primal Strike
-Monk's Ki-Empowered Strike

As well as spells like:
-Shillelagh
-Magic Weapon
-Shadow Blade
-Elemental Weapon
-Holy Weapon

Plus other non-weapon-specific spells and class abilities that would still allow you to damage/hinder/control these enemies.

MaxWilson

2020-10-18, 10:35 AM

One of my biggest frustration in 2nd edition as a player is how, if I was playing a Fighter, I kind of HAD to take specialization in Long Sword, as the odds greatly favoured finding them as magical loot. I wanted to make a spear/harpoon throwing character based on Queequeg and couldn't really- So annoying.

I think it's ok to give players what they want, as long as it's not only what they want. If it's something very specific (say, a Holy Avenger Glaive), make them work for it.

Well, longswords in AD&D are also unambiguously the best kind of Medium-sized melee weapon (1d8/1d12), just as two-handed swords are the best kind of Large weapon (1d10/3d6). Harpoons are Large but only 2d4/2d6. With how expensive enchantment is, it makes complete sense that you'd want to enchant the longswords and two-handed swords instead of harpoons.

Amusing side-note: harpoons in AD&D have a really pathetic range, 10 yards / 20 yards / 30 yards, and in 5E they still have that short range but it looks better because in 5E almost everything including magic has a range of under 40 yards.

Basically, don't expect players to care for magic items just because they're magic items. If I'm playing an ancestors barbarian with a big honking greataxe, I'm not going to change my aesthetic if the adventure has a +lots longsword! I'm either going to see if anyone would be willing to trade me the longsword for something more my speed, or failing that, I'll just gift it to some NPC I like.

My players would graft that longsword onto the end of a sturdy pole, then try to use it as a halberd and look at me expectantly to see what happened. IIRC it worked pretty well. (I can't remember if they had to eventually reforge it somehow to make it permanent, or if the initial jury-rig was enough.)

Morty

2020-10-18, 10:50 AM

I'm not sure what meaningful consequence is derived from loot being mismatched with the player's specialization. Unless we mean to teach players to stick to swords because that's that's what modules gravitate towards.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-18, 11:12 AM

I don't have a dog in this fight, since I don't use modules.

But I will note that the disparity between polearms and other weapons goes much deeper than just module writer's whims. From the DMG, here are all of the polearm options:

Generic Weapon +X
Trident of Fish Command (lol)
Weapon of Warning
Vicious Weapon
6x staff (of fire, of frost, of power, of striking, of thunder and lightning, of the magi), most of which are spell sticks

No named polearms. Frost brand and flame tongue are specifically swords. Giant slayer is axe | sword. Etc.

I believe that this is a legacy both of popular culture (in an incestuous way both cause and effect) and of earlier editions. In western fantasy culture, swords are the good-guy weapon. Polearms are for chumps and mooks. And as others have already said, 2e took this to a very high degree--basically all the good weapons were longswords, with a few greatswords.

So any DMG-item-based[1] game will have this same problem, module or not. Modules do add in custom items--I know PotA has a nifty spear in it--but most of the base is in the DMG items.

[1] which is a case of RAW-blindness IMO. I see nothing wrong with fitting the items to the world. Not inherently to the party--if they go deep into the dwarven mines where pikes are rather cumbersome and little used, they shouldn't expect to see pikes just because someone uses them. Conversely, they'll find fewer warhammers and greataxes and more bows and swords and finesse weapons among the graceful elven folk of the wood. Etc.

micahaphone

2020-10-18, 11:43 AM

It of course depends on the world you're playing in. Something like a "magic mart" isn't very common in most settings, and even then, only in large cities. And a lot of official adventures might not include a city, or even any settlement at all. In general those adventures assume you can make do with what you started with, plus the loot you find when you play well.

I haven't looked much at AL stuff, but in all the hardcover adventures I've read there's no magic mart. Magic weapons are a rarity and a cool find, even finding some rich person who collects them is a hard task.

When I was still a new DM and scared to deviate from the module (because what if I accidentally break something that occurs later?), I didn't tailor the loot at all. Now my party has many magical daggers just because that's what was in the rewards for what they did. None of them are rogues or dex fighters or really use daggers as more than backup weapons. They've handed some of them off to allied npcs as a minor damage boost for when those characters help out in battle. The general vibe when handing that loot out has been a real flat "meh" of disappointment.

If you use the magic item crafting rules from Xanthar's, this is a non-issue. If someone creates a build around the hand Xbow or Glaive, then there is a resource cost to make it magical, but it can be done.

I'm of the opinion that it would be wrong for a DM to create a reality that didn't allow for a path to access magic reach weapons or crossbows, but included plenty of magic swords - that just seems unfair to me.

On the other hand, I'm also against catering to a PC too much. "I want a flame tongue vorpal glaive for my PC" - at appropriate level you might run across a frost brand pike ...

I had a DM who homebrewed rules that for a cost and with access to appropriate level spells you could transfer enchantments from one weapon or armor to another. This allowed for some fun stuff while also keeping with the as written treasure and random treasure tables.

I once saw some great rules for making all weapon/armor enchantments based on runes. It was originally meant for Storm King's Thunder or other giant-centric campaigns, but part of it was being able to transfer the runes between weapons with the right knowledge and equipment, or paying an allied npc.

took a while but found
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/8lvxjo/skt_using_giant_runes/
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LDJA7FkMZwBIfz9warX

And kobold press has a book for it too, I've heard good things about it but haven't checked it out myself
https://koboldpress.com/kpstore/product/deep-magic-rune-pdf-5th-edition/

stoutstien

2020-10-18, 11:54 AM

this question can only be answered table to table due to being purely a relationship between player expectation and actual play.

MaxWilson

2020-10-18, 12:09 PM

this question can only be answered table to table due to being purely a relationship between player expectation and actual play.

Good answer. OP is asking the wrong people.

Tanarii

2020-10-18, 12:12 PM

Find a weapons and armor random generator chart online and reroll all preset weapon and armor choices until you get something that falls within the allowed weapon types for that type of magic item.

Or to really re-randomize, find the magic item table in the DMG that magic item comes from and randomly generate a replacement off that table.

stoutstien

2020-10-18, 12:38 PM

Good answer. OP is asking the wrong people.
Aye. A more interesting question is how do you introduce gear that is based on the player's choices without it feeling forced or what is the value of a magical weapon that might not fit their primary style compared to a non magical weapon that does.

MaxWilson

2020-10-18, 12:46 PM

Aye. A more interesting question is how do you introduce gear that is based on the player's choices without it feeling forced or what is the value of a magical weapon that might not fit their primary style compared to a non magical weapon that does.

I'm in favor of doing this at the rules level or sandbox level so that it's still based on player choices. You want a magical hand crossbow instead of a sword? Make one or go looking specifically for one. Talk to sages, make deals--or do something so legendary that your signature hand crossbow acquires an original magic of its own from your deeds and the stories told about them. BE the mighty hero of legend.

Hand_of_Vecna

2020-10-18, 12:52 PM

This is a question that should be asked at session 0 and should considered if the player asks for it.

Adventures strongly favor longswords and to a lesser extent Versatile Str weapons. Experienced players should know this. It seems from the place one handed swords have in mythology and fantasy literature and has been baked deeply into the culture of D&D, there's a reason that the pulp genre is often called "Sword & Sorcery".

PAM is known to be an optimal style generally stronger than longsword and shield as is Dex melee. It can be fun to have an extra challenge and layer of thought in a game if they need to have a suboptimal backup weapon for opponents with resistances. Also if there are two front line warriors in your game there's a god chance the longsword wielder could use a little boost.

In a recent Sunless Citadel game I used the anti-plant axe Hew and a shield for the boss well foreshadowed boss battle despite being an Echo Knight with Great Weapon Fighting. In the same campaign I now have a magical two handed sword, but have a minor radiance weapon on my hip for utility. This has been fun character building for me.

On the other hand I've had characters where I asked before even session 0 in personal conversation with the DM if the character would be accommodated in the loot tables like a Gunslinger or in the case of one highly specialized warrior that pretty much became noodle arms if he wasn't welding Feycrafted Mithral Elven Court Blades if we would be able to get custom upgrades on enchantments every few levels.

EggKookoo

2020-10-18, 12:59 PM

Aye. A more interesting question is how do you introduce gear that is based on the player's choices without it feeling forced or what is the value of a magical weapon that might not fit their primary style compared to a non magical weapon that does.

One thing I do with tailored items is put/equip them on the creatures the party is intended to fight, as opposed to having them sitting in a chest in the back of the chamber somewhere. Not any less forced, strictly speaking, but it creates a bit of excitement and makes the item feel more earned. Plus it lets me show off any signature features.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-10-18, 01:16 PM

I always find it funny when people say that magic swords are more prominent in mythology or whatever. The Spear of Destiny was by far the most prominent magical weapon in the environment dnd loosely emulates (with several historical rulers "wielding" "it" to miraculous effect) and was prominent enough to feature as a central device in golden age comics not too long ago. And if you go further / wider / older, gungnir, the trident, Green Dragon Crescent Blade, etc. were all prominent legendary polearms. The real issue is that nobody in either LOTR or pulp fiction prominently used polearms.

Anyway, I actually think it's better to give PCs off-build magic items to create flexibility and play variance, so long as you don't end up giving martials too few core magic item upgrades. If by T3 you've got a martial PC in all mundane equipment, I'd drop them something relevant. But for example, I think a vorpal sword adds the most fun to a party where nobody is built to use swords.

Hand_of_Vecna

2020-10-18, 01:36 PM

I believe that this is a legacy both of popular culture (in an incestuous way both cause and effect) and of earlier editions. In western fantasy culture, swords are the good-guy weapon. Polearms are for chumps and mooks.

This isn't exclusive to the west, it's true of every culture that developed swords.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-18, 02:13 PM

This isn't exclusive to the west, it's true of every culture that developed swords.

I thought so, but wasn't sure.

And the Spear of Destiny, iirc, was much more ambiguous as a heroic weapon than something like Excalibur. Less an active weapon than an Artifact of Power, something you own that grants power than something you wield directly in combat.

I mean there are certainly non sword famous weapons of power. The Celtic Gae Bolg, for one. But they're all old and not as much part of popular culture as the swords. For whatever reason.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-10-18, 03:34 PM

I thought so, but wasn't sure.

And the Spear of Destiny, iirc, was much more ambiguous as a heroic weapon than something like Excalibur. Less an active weapon than an Artifact of Power, something you own that grants power than something you wield directly in combat.

I mean there are certainly non sword famous weapons of power. The Celtic Gae Bolg, for one. But they're all old and not as much part of popular culture as the swords. For whatever reason.

Excalibur wasn't that big of a deal. Arthur also had Ron, his magic Spear, and Carnwennan, his dagger, was the most DnD magical item, cloaking him in shadow. But Arthur was an overall minor character from a remote backwater island. It's in retrospect, after Britain rose to world dominance, that he looks more prominent.

The most important magical sword in Europe was Joyeuse, Charlemagne's sword, which got its power from the Spear of Destiny, and could basically be used to cast color / prismatic spray.

Also, while on the topic, I wish someone would make some form of fantasy content based on the full array of crazy stories about Karl and his enemies. Modules, video game, TV show, etc. Over the centuries so many people made up new stories about him, if you put them all together it'd be fantastically loaded.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-18, 03:49 PM

Excalibur wasn't that big of a deal. Arthur also had Ron, his magic Spear, and Carnwennan, his dagger, was the most DnD magical item, cloaking him in shadow. But Arthur was an overall minor character from a remote backwater island. It's in retrospect, after Britain rose to world dominance, that he looks more prominent.

The most important magical sword in Europe was Joyeuse, Charlemagne's sword, which got its power from the Spear of Destiny, and could basically be used to cast color / prismatic spray.

Also, while on the topic, I wish someone would make some form of fantasy content based on the full array of crazy stories about Karl and his enemies. Modules, video game, TV show, etc. Over the centuries so many people made up new stories about him, if you put them all together it'd be fantastically loaded.

I'm talking mostly in popular culture, not in the actual myths at this point. Sure, different depictions had different weapons, but the ones that survived in the popular mind until now have been dominantly swords. And you can almost always identify the protagonist of a fantasy work by their weapon of choice--it's almost always a sword.

And there are other cultural markers--I remember reading about cultures where being beheaded by a sword was higher status than by an axe or by hanging. But can't remember them right now.

MinotaurWarrior

2020-10-18, 04:13 PM

I'm talking mostly in popular culture, not in the actual myths at this point. Sure, different depictions had different weapons, but the ones that survived in the popular mind until now have been dominantly swords. And you can almost always identify the protagonist of a fantasy work by their weapon of choice--it's almost always a sword.

And there are other cultural markers--I remember reading about cultures where being beheaded by a sword was higher status than by an axe or by hanging. But can't remember them right now.

Yeah, I agree. I just think it's specifically a 1960s on thing. Nobody in LotR or the big pulp stories that influenced Gygax and his players used polearms.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-18, 04:20 PM

Yeah, I agree. I just think it's specifically a 1960s on thing. Nobody in LotR or the big pulp stories that influenced Gygax and his players used polearms.

It's still present today. As I said, it's kind of incestuous--early D&D didn't have polearms, which influenced later depictions, which then kept D&D out of the polearm business. Look at a lot of anime today--polearms are there, they're just not protagonist weapons. Except staffs.

Another thing I was thinking of is that most "modern" polearms (halberd, glaive, pike) really got their western[1] start much later than things like spears and swords. When I think "Halberd", I think Renaissance/late medieval, not myth and magic. By that time, the whole "magic weapons" thing had gone away, so we didn't really get legends or cultural habits of magical polearms.

[1] Yes, I know that china and the east had lots of polearms of various types way earlier. But that hasn't percolated into western culture nearly as much, except as "exotic" weapons despite being pretty normal.

MaxWilson

2020-10-18, 04:21 PM

Yeah, I agree. I just think it's specifically a 1960s on thing. Nobody in LotR or the big pulp stories that influenced Gygax and his players used polearms.

And yet somehow Gygax seems to have been obsessed with them anyway. Spetums, ranseurs, glaive-guisarmes, voulges, etc. I don't even know what most of those really are, I just know their AD&D stats. :)

MoiMagnus

2020-10-18, 04:37 PM

As a DM, is it preferable to stick to the books, or should magical loot (such as a +1 halberd) be provided to players when not available in the adventure?

"Generic +1 weapon that is only in the module because the fighter need some loot otherwise will be rendered irrelevant by magic-resistant enemies" should be replaced by the appropriate type of weapon, or rolled through a random table. If the weapon has a particular reason to be the kind of weapon it is, then leave it as such.

How to determine it. Assume the player is unhappy, and ask "Why is this weapon a stupid sword and not something I can use?".
Do you have an answer other than "That's how it is." or "That's what is written in the book."? The answer can be as simple as "it is the weapon of the big bad guy, and as you saw, he uses swords".

If you don't have any reason, then the weapon is just a generic loot, and should be treated as such.
In this case, you should talk with your table to know if they prefer random weapons or tailored weapons.

Unoriginal

2020-10-18, 06:07 PM

But Arthur was an overall minor character from a remote backwater island. It's in retrospect, after Britain rose to world dominance, that he looks more prominent.

That's quite untrue, historically speaking. Medieval France loved King Arthur hard.

Pex

2020-10-18, 06:11 PM

Of course! The DM runs the game, not the published book. Give the players what they want for the fun of the game. Not any particular magic weapon. Not any particular must get by level, but they get one. You don't punish the player for the audacity of taking Pole Arm Master by denying him a magical glaive forever.

Tanarii

2020-10-18, 06:36 PM

And yet somehow Gygax seems to have been obsessed with them anyway. Spetums, ranseurs, glaive-guisarmes, voulges, etc. I don't even know what most of those really are, I just know their AD&D stats. :)
He was a wargamer.

Besides, D&D assumed you'd have armies in the late game, so lots of mundane polearms floating around. OTOH I have no idea if battlesystem used that table. I don't recall the 2e Battlesystem version using anything like it.

Magic swords play a huge part in the older D&D rules for the heroes. Being able to use them was considered a major class feature by the time of BECMI/AD&D. oD&D I gather they all came with ego, so a mixed blessing. But they were still the only special magic weapons.

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-18, 07:03 PM

Why can’t a spear be a flame tongue or frost brand? Because the genre is swords and sorcery. That's why.

That said, I side with Willie the Duck on this matter.

Sigreid

2020-10-18, 08:40 PM

Tanarii

2020-10-18, 09:43 PM

(I'll let non-casters make magic items because why not)
Using the Xanathars rules, they already can as long as they've got the formula, the exotic and mundane ingredients, and the right tool proficiency (or Arcana proficiency).

Sigreid

2020-10-18, 10:17 PM

Using the Xanathars rules, they already can as long as they've got the formula, the exotic and mundane ingredients, and the right tool proficiency (or Arcana proficiency).

I'm aware, but I have this feeling that a lot of people have been conditioned for decades that that's a spellcaster thing.

Mellack

2020-10-18, 11:21 PM

Some earlier editions of D&D bypassed this debate by making a rather inexpensive spell called Transfer Enchantment. Found a vorpal sword but you prefer to use an axe? Just transfer the power over. I believe it cost just 25gp in components.

Pex

2020-10-19, 12:37 AM

If I'm running a module, I'm probably just going to use what's in the module. There's nothing wrong with swapping stuff out, it's just not what I'm going to do because if I'm running a module it's because I've not got the time or inclination to put something together myself.

When I'm running an adventure I create, I'm going to go with random treasure tables.

If a player wants a particular type of magic item they can research how to make it (I'll let non-casters make magic items because why not), or research existing items and I'll build an adventure around that.

What is so fundamentally difficult to change where it says +1 longsword that deals +1d6 cold damage to +1 glaive that deals +1d6 cold damage? Why should Glaive Pole Arm Master guy have to spend game world time, money, and effort to research but Greatsword Great Weapon Master guy can have his magic weapon because it's Tuesday?

Sigreid

2020-10-19, 01:00 AM

Tanarii

2020-10-19, 01:40 AM

MinotaurWarrior

2020-10-19, 07:15 AM

It's still present today. As I said, it's kind of incestuous--early D&D didn't have polearms, which influenced later depictions, which then kept D&D out of the polearm business. Look at a lot of anime today--polearms are there, they're just not protagonist weapons. Except staffs.

Another thing I was thinking of is that most "modern" polearms (halberd, glaive, pike) really got their western[1] start much later than things like spears and swords. When I think "Halberd", I think Renaissance/late medieval, not myth and magic. By that time, the whole "magic weapons" thing had gone away, so we didn't really get legends or cultural habits of magical polearms.

[1] Yes, I know that china and the east had lots of polearms of various types way earlier. But that hasn't percolated into western culture nearly as much, except as "exotic" weapons despite being pretty normal.

Right, 1960s on.

Though I'd note that pikes are much older than you give them credit for (Alexander the great had pikes) and complex polearms are precisely as anachronistic as full plate / breastplate (taking breastplate to be the sort of Conquistador style heavy breastplate alone armor)

That's quite untrue, historically speaking. Medieval France loved King Arthur hard.

England and Wales being confusingly overlapping with France, yes, it was a part of (high medieval) French Literature. However, the "Matter of France" was more prominent - think, even, of the Paladin class, named for Charlemagne's companions.

But Charlemagne was also a major figure in the rest of Christendom, especially the Holy Roman Empire. And other Kingdoms had their own national heroes, eg El Cid in the Iberian Peninsula.

It may be an exaggeration to call Arthur minor, but it's also an exaggeration to project his current prominence back into medieval Europe.

Sigreid

2020-10-19, 07:20 AM

patchyman

2020-10-19, 07:39 AM

I think it isn’t either/or. I never have a problem changing around the magical gear in an adventure, but I always do so with an eye to the flavour of the adventure.

If the adventure has a lot of flavour (say SKT), I will probably include a lot of axes and mauls (and you might find fewer swords than in the adventure). In Dragon Heist, where the flavour is different, I have no problem changing magical weapons to whatever the player is likely to use.

Unoriginal

2020-10-19, 07:42 AM

England and Wales being confusingly overlapping with France, yes, it was a part of (high medieval) French Literature. However, the "Matter of France" was more prominent - think, even, of the Paladin class, named for Charlemagne's companions.

But Charlemagne was also a major figure in the rest of Christendom, especially the Holy Roman Empire. And other Kingdoms had their own national heroes, eg El Cid in the Iberian Peninsula.

It may be an exaggeration to call Arthur minor, but it's also an exaggeration to project his current prominence back into medieval Europe.

There is a reason why the first novel written in French (the "roman", which to this day is the French word for novel) was one of the Arthurian legend, though. King Arthur was maybe less universally known than now, but in England and France he was EXTREMELY popular. The Matter of Britain was certainly not less popular than the Matter of France.

That being said, and more to the point for this thread, the fact is that Charlemagne, El Cid and most of the heroes popular in the medieval times had legendary swords, or had their other weapons mostly forgotten as time went on.

Wondrous spears and legendary spear users were very present either in earlier times or in cultures where spear use remained something of the high casts. But in the middle of the European Middle Age, being rich enough to have several feet of worked steel as a sidearm was what was glorified, and it in turn influenced all the literature of the era (since it was the rich who paid for it to be written).

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-19, 07:42 AM

And of course, in a world where the underlying rules of the multiverse make it common for heroes to specialize in polearms because it's mechanically superior, it does make perfect sense. I sniggered at this, but here's a thought.

For many years and in many troop formations, the spear (and pole arms, which are a variation on the spear - something sharp and pointy at the end of a stick) was the primary weapon and a sword/blade was a secondary weapon (gladius, saeax, arming sword) for the shield and spear wielding infantry. Spears and pikes are also better horseback weapons in a lot of cases.

Swords, particularly the good ones, were more expensive and thus of limited distribution. They were more frequently found among the wealthy. An ax was also more common than a sword if we head up to the vikings and such.

Who will be able to afford the services of a wizard/sorcerer who can enchant a weapon? The wealthy. Magic swords make sense. The dwarves with their axes and hammers we'll leave alone for the moment.

I am not saying that magic spears don't make sense: they do. Gil Gilad's spear is mentioned in Tolkien's passages regarding the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age, alongside Elendil's Narsil - and I think there's a magical spear in some of the older Celtic legends from Ireland (not braining very well at the moment) but the sword holds a unique place in the swords and sorcery fictional traditions (see also Durandal and Excalibur) that D&D grew from. Lest any doubt me, read the Monsters and Treasures book from original D&D.

Sigreid

2020-10-19, 08:05 AM

I sniggered at this, but here's a thought.

For many years and in many troop formations, the spear (and pole arms, which are a variation on the spear - something sharp and pointy at the end of a stick) was the primary weapon and a sword/blade was a secondary weapon (gladius, saeax, arming sword) for the shield and spear wielding infantry. Spears and pikes are also better horseback weapons in a lot of cases.

Swords, particularly the good ones, were more expensive and thus of limited distribution. They were more frequently found among the wealthy. An ax was also more common than a sword if we head up to the vikings and such.

Who will be able to afford the services of a wizard/sorcerer who can enchant a weapon? The wealthy. Magic swords make sense. The dwarves with their axes and hammers we'll leave alone for the moment.

I am not saying that magic spears don't make sense: they do. Gil Gilad's spear is mentioned in Tolkien's passages regarding the defeat of Sauron at the end of the Second Age, alongside Elendil's Narsil - and I think there's a magical spear in some of the older Celtic legends from Ireland (not braining very well at the moment) but the sword holds a unique place in the swords and sorcery fictional traditions (see also Durandal and Excalibur) that D&D grew from. Lest any doubt me, read the Monsters and Treasures book from original D&D.

Cu Chulain (me spell bad) had a particularly brutal magic spear, Gale Bulg, made from the bones of a sea monster. One of the deities had a fiery spear that would fight on it's own.

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-19, 08:07 AM

Cu Chulain (me spell bad) had a particularly brutal magic spear, Gale Bulg, made from the bones of a sea monster. One of the deities had a fiery spear that would fight on it's own. It was the former that I was thinking about: Cú Chulainn. Thanks.

N810

2020-10-19, 09:41 AM

Get some sovern glue a stave, and a magic sword...
Boom, instant pole weapon

Frogreaver

2020-10-19, 09:50 AM

I don’t care what the dm does as long as he tells me in session 0.

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-19, 11:14 AM

Get some sovern glue a stave, and a magic sword ... Boom, instant pole weapon As I consulte my Gygaxian polearm index, that's almost a Guisarme voulge glaive fork also known as a Lucerne Cheese Slicer. :smallbiggrin: I think.

Or a pike.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2020-10-19, 11:21 AM

The easy fix to this problem is to announce, prior to character creation, that you'll be re-tooling magical loot in the module/DMG to increase variety in weapon types. Then it's not a tailored thing for a particular player; it's a fix to a minor game issue.

cutlery

2020-10-19, 11:33 AM

Telwar

2020-10-19, 11:41 AM

What is so fundamentally difficult to change where it says +1 longsword that deals +1d6 cold damage to +1 glaive that deals +1d6 cold damage? Why should Glaive Pole Arm Master guy have to spend game world time, money, and effort to research but Greatsword Great Weapon Master guy can have his magic weapon because it's Tuesday?

How often do people actually use longswords, anyway? Especially now?

Seriously... thinking back over the 3/.5, 4, and 5e characters I have played, I have had maybe two use a longsword as their primary weapon. One of those was my high elf mystic, and the dm let him use a mithral longsword so it counted as a finesse weapon (dm fiat). The rest tended to use bastard swords or full on 2h weapons.

Now, while my experience may not be universal, the most common time I see longswords mentioned is as 2h weapons for small characters. I suspect that most 1h sword use is with a rapier, not a longsword.

So, I kind of think that maybe the magic item list, as preponderant with longswords as it is, doesn't reflect the modern game. And that maybe, instead of just copying the 2e magic weapon list because they were in a hurry, they should have, say, used the 4e method and have properties that could go on weapon types.

Because there's no actual reason, beyond nostalgia, for a flametongue to always be a longsword.

Elbeyon

2020-10-19, 11:41 AM

Ever since weapon specialization in AD&D, there was a chance that specializing in a certain weapon type might lead to lack of synergy between items found in an adventure and character build.

So, this isn't new, and is the price of doing business. If you don't like that prospect, don't invest so many resources in using a single weapon type.If you specialized in a weapon and never got that weapon in loot. Would that be fun for you? Would you consider your personal game improved by that fact?

Morty

2020-10-19, 11:43 AM

Ever since weapon specialization in AD&D, there was a chance that specializing in a certain weapon type might lead to lack of synergy between items found in an adventure and character build.

So, this isn't new, and is the price of doing business. If you don't like that prospect, don't invest so many resources in using a single weapon type.

"So many resources" in this context is one feat. And it might be a good retort if the magic item list wasn't so heavily skewed towards one or two types.

cutlery

2020-10-19, 11:45 AM

"So many resources" in this context is one feat. And it might be a good retort if the magic item list wasn't so heavily skewed towards one or two types.

If it isn't that much of an investment, then not finding a suitable polearm isn't that big a deal, is it?

Evaar

2020-10-19, 11:49 AM

The answer to the question is yes. There's no good reason the polearms were so neglected in the DM's Guide. When anyone points this out, the response is always "those items are just suggestions, you can convert them to anything you want."

To take an originalist's view of the text here would be to presume that the designers purposely did not design magical polearms because they see polearms as exceedingly powerful otherwise. One could argue that PAM makes that true, but I doubt anyone seriously believes the game was balanced with that level of granularity.

Yes. Let your players have toys to play with. Justify it however you want. Maybe there's just a magical glaive there, maybe it's actually a magical sword but the magic is in the blade so a craftsman could convert it to a glaive, maybe you just find raw magical meteorite ore that can be taken to a NPC who can forge it into a halberd.

MaxWilson

2020-10-19, 11:52 AM

How often do people actually use longswords, anyway? Especially now?

Paladins use longswords IME because they're too busy pumping Charisma to invest seriously in GWM fighting or Strength, and they are tanks so they need a shield, and longswords are a decent default one-handed weapon.

(Thinks) That's about it. Nobody else uses them.

Pex

2020-10-19, 11:52 AM

If it isn't that much of an investment, then not finding a suitable polearm isn't that big a deal, is it?

It is when fighting monsters resistant or immune to non-magical weapons.

Unoriginal

2020-10-19, 11:57 AM

jojosskul

2020-10-19, 11:58 AM

To take an originalist's view of the text here would be to presume that the designers purposely did not design magical polearms because they see polearms as exceedingly powerful otherwise. One could argue that PAM makes that true, but I doubt anyone seriously believes the game was balanced with that level of granularity.

Just wanted to call this out because it's made me realize that RAW = Originalist and RAI = Non-Originalist and we've all been secretely practicing to argue in front of the US Supreme Court this whole time. Do actual Lawyers play a lot of DnD? I feel like actual Lawyers probably play a lot of DnD.

So, from that persepective, just tell your players up front whether you'll be going strictly by the text and included treasure (Originalist) or whether you'll be interpreting the INTENT of the hardcover writers (we intend for one party member to obtain a boost from a magical weapon here, so Non-Originalist) and go from there.

Sigreid

2020-10-19, 12:01 PM

It is when fighting monsters resistant or immune to non-magical weapons.

In addition to my earlier statements about them being able to track down specific things they want, they're also adventurers and I expect them to be able to deal with things in other ways. For example, even though it isn't used very often, when I play a wizard or something I tend to get the Magic Weapon spell at my earliest opportunity as an emergency solution.

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-19, 12:06 PM

Our party just found a sword of sharpness. (yay)
It can either be a greatsword, a long sword, or a scimitar

The DM hasn't decided what it is yet. The suspense is killing me.

cutlery

2020-10-19, 12:09 PM

It is when fighting monsters resistant or immune to non-magical weapons.

If there are other magical weapons around then that particular problem is solved.

If there are magical weapons, simply not pole arms, and a player of a character who took pole arm mastery refuses to use them to deal with these creatures, that's the player refusing to play the hand they were dealt.

Elbeyon

2020-10-19, 12:13 PM

If there are other magical weapons around then that particular problem is solved.

If there are magical weapons, simply not pole arms, and a player of a character who took pole arm mastery refuses to use them to deal with these creatures, that's the player refusing to play the hand they were dealt.If you specialized in a weapon and never got that weapon in loot. Would that be fun for you? Would you consider your personal game improved by that fact?

MaxWilson

2020-10-19, 12:26 PM

If you specialized in a weapon and never got that weapon in loot. Would that be fun for you? Would you consider your personal game improved by that fact?

Sure. There's a reason I like EKs for their access to the Magic Weapon spell. I don't expect to find magical bows or hand crossbows.

Unoriginal

2020-10-19, 12:35 PM

Sure. There's a reason I like EKs for their access to the Magic Weapon spell. I don't expect to find magical bows or hand crossbows.

Also works for the Arcane Archer.

micahaphone

2020-10-19, 12:52 PM

Funny how the "sucks to be you, you chose to take that character option knowing that there's no guarantee you'll get the related equipment" only applies to martials.

Would you ever run a game where spell foci aren't a thing, and component pouches aren't a get out of jail free card? Sorry, you can't cast Grease without first finding a source of butter. Nope, you haven't come across any pigs so there's no pig lard. The cleric can't cast Bless without a sprinkle of holy water, Silent Image requires a bit of fleece and you haven't seen any wool or sheep around either. Heaven help a spells known player who didn't carefully weigh the usefulness of a certain spell vs the likelihood of finding their components during the course of this adventure.

I will say that this can be interesting in a prison break / shipwreck / extreme survival scenario, but that should be known going into the campaign, that's not a default mode of play. "Hey you'll be scrounging for literally any equipment" needs to be covered in session 0, whereas "you will go into dungeons, fight stuff, and find loot" is a standard assumption for D&D.

It's fun to build a character with a goal or focus, that's why we do it. Encourage your player's fun.

MaxWilson

2020-10-19, 12:59 PM

micahaphone

2020-10-19, 01:03 PM

I would actually prefer it if spells had to be found as treasure or researched during play, instead of automatically gained on level-up, for everyone except priests (druids and clerics) who learn them from their hierarchy. 5E makes spell acquisition too easy for my taste. Simulacrum would be less offensively OP if finding a scroll of Simulacrum were an in-play event on par with finding a Vorpal Greatsword +3.

I partially agree with that, I would love if some spells needed questing or research to get, just like a legendarily rare and powerful weapon. But without significant house rules, that's not the default to D&D. I think if we're playing the standard rules for spellcasters and they get all their choices and nice things, so should martials.

cutlery

2020-10-19, 01:18 PM

Funny how the "sucks to be you, you chose to take that character option knowing that there's no guarantee you'll get the related equipment" only applies to martials.

Right, because all I ever do is talk about how martials are too strong and need to be nerfed.

PAM in 5e is 100% a munchkin choice - and one of the counterbalances to that munchkinery (whether or not it was designed as such) is the relative scarcity of those weapons. Take the feat, use the weapons when available, but have a plan for when they aren't. You might have to use a stave or spear - you still get some of the feat's bonuses in those cases.

It was much the same with exotic weapons in 3e.

MaxWilson

2020-10-19, 01:39 PM

I partially agree with that, I would love if some spells needed questing or research to get, just like a legendarily rare and powerful weapon. But without significant house rules, that's not the default to D&D. I think if we're playing the standard rules for spellcasters and they get all their choices and nice things, so should martials.

Maybe. But you basically accused everyone else in this thread of having an irrational bias in favor of full casters, and I just want to note that that's not true. Some of us are willing to use the default rules for EVERYONE just because they're the default, and if that means Polearm Masters have to use magical swords sometimes instead of polearms if they can't arrange another alternative, so be it.

Meaningful play consists in making decisions with discernable effects that are integrated into the larger game--taking a feat which is obviously great most of the time and not useful other times unless you find or make a magic halberd is a valid choice, with discernible effects, integrated into the larger context. It's a meaningful choice and as DM I'm not going to deliberately take the meaning away.

It's okay if you as DM don't view that aspect of feat choice as meaningful. You're probably playing with people who have the same preferences as you, or they wouldn't still be playing.

Tanarii

2020-10-19, 01:41 PM

How often do people actually use longswords, anyway? Especially now?IMX all the time, in all editions. Because thats the best magic items, and they know that.

At the least it's common to specialize in one handed Str weapons, and use whatever catches their fancy they find one.

micahaphone

2020-10-19, 01:41 PM

Right, because all I ever do is talk about how martials are too strong and need to be nerfed.

PAM in 5e is 100% a munchkin choice - and one of the counterbalances to that munchkinery (whether or not it was designed as such) is the relative scarcity of those weapons. Take the feat, use the weapons when available, but have a plan for when they aren't. You might have to use a stave or spear - you still get some of the feat's bonuses in those cases.

It was much the same with exotic weapons in 3e.

A single feat = munchkin?

Yes, it is part of several powerful combos, but needing 2-3 feats is already a heavy enough price. It's not game breaking in any of theme combos. If a game is around levels 5-8 and magic weapons are just starting to appear, and resistances are starting to become somewhat common on enemies, I'm not going to punish or balance a character by not giving them equipment.

I remember grod the giant's signature is something like
Grod's Law: "You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.”

Is a fighter with PAM that much stronger than a sword and shield fighter who put ASIs into their strength score? Should we otherwise limit and penalize the polearm fighter for their choice?

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

Maybe. But you basically accused everyone else in this thread of having an irrational bias in favor of full casters, and I just want to note that that's not true. Some of us are willing to use the default rules for EVERYONE just because they're the default, and if that means Polearm Masters have to use magical swords sometimes instead of polearms if they can't arrange another alternative, so be it.

Meaningful play consists in making decisions with discernable effects that are integrated into the larger game--taking a feat which is obviously great most of the time and not useful other times unless you find out make a magic halberd is a valid choice, with discernible effects, integrated into the larger context. It's a meaningful choice and as DM I'm not going to deliberately take the meaning away.

It's okay if you as DM don't view that aspect of feat choice as meaningful. You're probably playing with people who have the same preferences as you, or they wouldn't still be playing.

Very well said Max. I do see that aspect of the feat as meaningful (+2 STR is useful for all weapons, PAM is only for certain weapons, such is the tradeoff), but I see the tradeoff of not ever finding meaningful loot to be a part of the game that is not fun. There are plenty of meaningful choices that my table frequently skips over because we don't find them fun, like 5E's detailed travelling and exploration rules.

For example, let's say you have a party of a big hulking barbarian who enjoys swinging a great axe and the player doesn't care much for optimizing, they're just here to have fun with friends, a cleric, a sniper rogue, and a wizard. You've got a great 4 person party that can cover most of the roles, I'd call them fairly well balanced. Great for delving into dungeons. If rolling on the loot tables keeps giving them magical longswords, and no one in the party wants to use them, is that a fun reward at the end of the dungeon? Only one character could really use them (the barbarian), and this player thinks it's more fun to stick to his mental image of a big double headed axe.
Especially if there's some sort of larger plot/threat happening (like in the published campaigns), and the players don't want to spend lots of down time searching for a buyer each time they find a magic longsword in the dungeon.

AdAstra

2020-10-19, 01:49 PM

Bloodcloud

2020-10-19, 01:50 PM

Just wanted to call this out because it's made me realize that RAW = Originalist and RAI = Non-Originalist and we've all been secretely practicing to argue in front of the US Supreme Court this whole time. Do actual Lawyers play a lot of DnD? I feel like actual Lawyers probably play a lot of DnD.

So, from that persepective, just tell your players up front whether you'll be going strictly by the text and included treasure (Originalist) or whether you'll be interpreting the INTENT of the hardcover writers (we intend for one party member to obtain a boost from a magical weapon here, so Non-Originalist) and go from there.

Am lawyer, play Dnd, DND was actually part of the reason I chose my career. If I actually enjoy looking for obscure rules in books, why not get paid for it?

Also, I have old notes from a law interpretation graduate level course I wanted to adapt to suggest better rule arguing than boring and useless raw vs rai, but I need to translate the material and I have a life and ****, so hasn't happened yet.

Also, regarding the topic... I like to put a mix of items tailor made for a character, random items, and items that make sense for the particular dungeon, creature they are placed with. Good way to get a neat balance of thing. That said I definitely drop too many, and my players are kinda godly and unstoppable right now, but that just means I have access to the REALLY FUN parts of the monster manuals now, and can custom build multi-phase absurd monsters.

Monster Manuel

2020-10-19, 01:57 PM

One thing I do with tailored items is put/equip them on the creatures the party is intended to fight, as opposed to having them sitting in a chest in the back of the chamber somewhere. Not any less forced, strictly speaking, but it creates a bit of excitement and makes the item feel more earned. Plus it lets me show off any signature features.

Was going to say exactly the same thing. There's nothing at all contrived about giving a player exactly the weapon they want when they had to beat its' current wielder to get it. Even better if they hear about Mordoth and his Black Glaive ahead of time, so that when they finally beat Mordoth and loot his +2 Glaive, it feels earned. Easy to buff up an NPC in a published adventure with a weapon or item intended to fall into the player's hands, and if there's some foreshadowing built into the module that lets them know the encounter with the NPC is coming, throw in some discussion of their gear, too. That's how I've played it, whenever I've done a pre-published adventure that wasn't giving out loot that was well-suited to the players.

You want a magic blowgun? Sure, I'll fight you for it...

Another possibility is that, even with the punishing Crafting rules for downtime, a basic +1 Polearm is only an Uncommon item, and one can be enchanted by a 3rd level caster for 500gp over 20 days, by the book. Many published adventures have a time-sensitive element to them, so this is not a viable solution every time, but really 500 gold and a few weeks of an NPC's time is not too much to manage. If it feels too "magic-shop"ey to your group, play it out as an encounter, or a reward from a grateful NPC...work the act of convincing this spellcaster/weaponsmith to make you a magic polearm into the story somehow.

Getting cool gear is fun, and anything that makes the game more fun is a good thing, as I see it.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-19, 01:59 PM

Am lawyer, play Dnd, DND was actually part of the reason I chose my career. If I actually enjoy looking for obscure rules in books, why not get paid for it?

Also, I have old notes from a law interpretation graduate level course I wanted to adapt to suggest better rule arguing than boring and useless raw vs rai, but I need to translate the material and I have a life and ****, so hasn't happened yet.

Honestly, if you tried D&D style rules lawyering in a US court, you get laughed at. At best. Likely you'd get Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous arguments. Courts don't turn on exact weasel wording much at all--there are hosts of canons of construction that say otherwise and look at intent, purpose, common understanding, equity, etc.

MaxWilson

2020-10-19, 02:14 PM

Very well said Max. I do see that aspect of the feat as meaningful (+2 STR is useful for all weapons, PAM is only for certain weapons, such is the tradeoff), but I see the tradeoff of not ever finding meaningful loot to be a part of the game that is not fun. There are plenty of meaningful choices that my table frequently skips over because we don't find them fun, like 5E's detailed travelling and exploration rules.

For example, let's say you have a party of a big hulking barbarian who enjoys swinging a great axe and the player doesn't care much for optimizing, they're just here to have fun with friends, a cleric, a sniper rogue, and a wizard. You've got a great 4 person party that can cover most of the roles, I'd call them fairly well balanced. Great for delving into dungeons. If rolling on the loot tables keeps giving them magical longswords, and no one in the party wants to use them, is that a fun reward at the end of the dungeon? Only one character could really use them (the barbarian), and this player thinks it's more fun to stick to his mental image of a big double headed axe.
Especially if there's some sort of larger plot/threat happening (like in the published campaigns), and the players don't want to spend lots of down time searching for a buyer each time they find a magic longsword in the dungeon.

I think the building tension of the never-ending longswords could contribute to fun, yes, especially if you have the Barbarian roll the treasure die on the spot when they open up the treasure chest or whatever. Sooner or later he's going to find a magical axe, but sure, I can imagine rolling 5 longswords in a row to be as enjoyable as being the one guy who only seems to roll natural 1s on critical fights (until that one time he rolls two 20s).

But, I probably play a different style of RPG than you do, so what's fun for me and my players might not be the kind of fun you're aiming for. (And what's fun for you might be something I would use something other than 5E to run. E.g. you can play 5E as a game of corporate espionage and accumulating custom gear to make you more deadly, but I would just do that in Shadowrun. You can run 5E as a game of emotional drama and relationship exploration, but I would run that in DramaSystem. You can run 5E as the exploration of powerful magic systems and mythical archetypes, but I would run that game in AD&D. 5E is the game you play when you want to run a crunchy, somewhat open-ended power fantasy adventure game in which the Promise of D&D (https://stirgessuck.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/the-promise-of-dd/) is extended to the players:

Let it be resolved that: The promise of D&D is that all the important problems in life can be solved with violence.

That’s sort of a big bold statement, so let me carry on with immediately backtracking and clarifying.

Look, if your own personal D&D game involves 90% of the time spent talking to people, or peacefully marching through the wilderness, or otherwise not sticking sharp pieces of metal into squishy bags of meat, that’s just fine. I’m not trying to tell you you’re playing D&D all wrong or missing the point or anything like that.

I might suggest that D&D, as a system, doesn’t offer as much support as several other systems for problem-solving methods beyond the immediate application of stabbing. But you probably already knew that, so let’s move on.

And if you solved a couple of your big important D&D problems without resorting to violence, out of dozens, that’s fine too. I don’t believe D&D promises that you must solve all your important problems with violence — merely that you could, if you felt like it, which you probably will.

So when you see me commenting on how I'd run 5E, it's with this kind of gameplay in mind, which may or may not be the kind of game you are running in 5E. You'll see me talk about running elections, for example, but also about how cheating in elections can lead to assassination attempts. Violence is always lurking in the background somewhere as a potential solution to problems, for both PCs and NPCs.

Tanarii

2020-10-19, 02:14 PM

Another possibility is that, even with the punishing Crafting rules for downtime, a basic +1 Polearm is only an Uncommon item, and one can be enchanted by a 3rd level caster for 500gp over 20 days, by the book. Many published adventures have a time-sensitive element to them, so this is not a viable solution every time, but really 500 gold and a few weeks of an NPC's time is not too much to manage. If it feels too "magic-shop"ey to your group, play it out as an encounter, or a reward from a grateful NPC...work the act of convincing this spellcaster/weaponsmith to make you a magic polearm into the story somehow.
That works provided you first found the formula in an ancient ruin or whatever, provided the exotic ingredients that are found while adventuring, and then found an NPC with the required tool proficieny.

Its not just "find an NPC caster" any more.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-19, 02:26 PM

That works provided you first found the formula in an ancient ruin or whatever, provided the exotic ingredients that are found while adventuring, and then found an NPC with the required tool proficieny.

Its not just "find an NPC caster" any more.

Yeah. Crafting is designed to force you to adventure, not play downtime engineer. And the formulae are one step more rare than the item--finding an Uncommon formula is equivalent to finding a Rare item. And then you need a CR 3-4 "boss" (or location guarded by something like that) for the exotic ingredient the formula requires.

micahaphone

2020-10-19, 02:47 PM

Rest assured, my games have plenty of problem solving violence in them! :smallbiggrin: Currently, my players are hunting down a secretive devil cult in an arcane college town to kill the devil running it. On the behest of another devil. Not much combat during the search (and boy have they surprised me with how they went about the search), but they're about to arrest the secret cult leader, and things are going to pop off.

I have enjoyed running/playing other systems too. Big points to Stars Without Number for managing to thread the needle between D20 and 2d6 systems by using both for different aspects.

I think it comes down to my desire to curate the game somewhat for my players and to match their preferences. I'm not going to run a "save the world" plot for a group of money hungry murder hobos, and I won't set up a "world is your oyster" sandbox for players who want to feel heroic while following a plot.

I could just write the adventure ahead of time, plug it into a computer, and have it run the game exactly as RAW as possible, because a computer will remember the rules better than I ever can, and it can look up stat blocks in half a second while I thumb through books. But we're playing a table top for things a video game can never provide, a DM's ability to change and improvise on the fly. I don't want every loot pile to contain exactly what the players need, but after the second magic longsword that no one wants shows up, I'll step in as a DM and change it to a great axe or whatever the players would appreciate.

cutlery

2020-10-19, 02:48 PM

2. Magic items are tailored, more or less. Basically, people get items that are likely to actually be fun to use. Someone hasn't seen any items that work for them? Throw them something that it makes sense for them to use.

I think players shouldn't expect a perfectly custom made magic item of any kind, ever, unless they happen to be the one making it. This goes for rods of the pact keeper, staves of the magi, whatever.

There are plenty of ways around the need-magic-to-damage-certain-monsters problem.

Any player that specializes too much in one thing is going to have to spend some time on the sidelines if they can't adapt. That goes for all-melee-no-ranged builds, polearm only builds, stealth-only builds, etcetera.

Besides, what happens if only one magic polearm is found and three players want it? Magic items are like a box of chocolates.

MaxWilson

2020-10-19, 02:49 PM

Yeah. Crafting is designed to force you to adventure, not play downtime engineer. And the formulae are one step more rare than the item--finding an Uncommon formula is equivalent to finding a Rare item. And then you need a CR 3-4 "boss" (or location guarded by something like that) for the exotic ingredient the formula requires.

Not that any of these things are insurmountable obstacles, of course.

(And they also lead directly to other things like plentiful Wands of Magic Missile.)

I think it comes down to my desire to curate the game somewhat for my players and to match their preferences. I'm not going to run a "save the world" plot for a group of money hungry murder hobos, and I won't set up a "world is your oyster" sandbox for players who want to feel heroic while following a plot.

I could just write the adventure ahead of time, plug it into a computer, and have it run the game exactly as RAW as possible, because a computer will remember the rules better than I ever can, and it can look up stat blocks in half a second while I thumb through books. But we're playing a table top for things a video game can never provide, a DM's ability to change and improvise on the fly. I don't want every loot pile to contain exactly what the players need, but after the second magic longsword that no one wants shows up, I'll step in as a DM and change it to a great axe or whatever the players would appreciate.

That makes sense. I understand where you're coming from now.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-19, 02:54 PM

Not that any of these things are insurmountable obstacles, of course.

(And they also lead directly to other things like plentiful Wands of Magic Missile.)

The existence of a formula is entirely in the hands of the DM. As is the availability of the exotic ingredient. And that's one exotic ingredient (ie one quest) per item, at least by default.

Like all questions of magic items, 5e leaves it entirely up to the DM. They can use any setting they like for that parameter. You don't get magic items unless the DM gives them to you explicitly. And no rules-based cause to whine unless the DM does so in a biased manner (ie gives his favorites all the toys). The players have exactly zero levers here, it's all in the DM's hand.

Now, IMO, the DM should be relatively generous within the parameters of the world. Constantly giving things no one can use is obnoxious. But if you're adventuring in dwarf territory, don't expect to find lots of powerful bows. And vice versa for elves and battleaxes. Unless the world takes a different view on such things, of course.

micahaphone

2020-10-19, 02:57 PM

Now, IMO, the DM should be relatively generous within the parameters of the world. Constantly giving things no one can use is obnoxious. But if you're adventuring in dwarf territory, don't expect to find lots of powerful bows. And vice versa for elves and battleaxes. Unless the world takes a different view on such things, of course.

Now you've got me thinking about elves making elegant enchanted axes that are useful for slicing through unsightly vines or unwanted trees or something, and dwarves making dynamite loaded crossbows.

MaxWilson

2020-10-19, 03:13 PM

The existence of a formula is entirely in the hands of the DM. As is the availability of the exotic ingredient. And that's one exotic ingredient (ie one quest) per item, at least by default.

AFB but IIRC there's actually no default here--Xanathar's doesn't say a word about ingredient quantity and neither does the DMG.

Also, it's not entirely in the hands of the DM--players can pursue information through whatever means they choose, including the Sage background by the way. Players aren't required to just sit there passively waiting for a juicy secret to land in their lap.

Mercureality

2020-10-19, 05:51 PM

In most official D&D adventures, there are no magical polearms. This means no magical glaive, halberd, pike, or spear.

The exception is usually quarterstaffs. I noticed there is a surprising high number of magical staves in published adventures. So if someone makes quarterstaff + shield build with the polearm master feat, they'll probably be okay even if the DM sticks to the book.

For a build planning to use glaives / halberds / pikes though, there mostly likely won't be any magical weapon in the adventure they can use. This can be highly problematic when fighting monsters resistant, or flat out immune, to nonmagical weapons.

A similar scenario happens with heavy weapons & the gwm feat, and crossbow expert / SS builds.

As a DM, is it preferable to stick to the books, or should magical loot (such as a +1 halberd) be provided to players when not available in the adventure?

Part of that is there are few magical polearms in the DMG. Swords, axes, and hammers are sexy fantasy staples, especially swords. It's Swords n Sorcery, not Halberds n Hocus Pocus, alas. Despite the fact that polearms were the real weapons of war, while swords, axes, hammers and the like were typically special purpose weapons, sidearms, or status symbols, polearms get short shrift in fantasy fiction. As a result writers, including D&D adventure writers, tend to just kind of forget about them. It's kind of refreshing that PAM is so good in 5e--it lets D&D hew closer to history for a little while. Pun intended. But I digress.

The writers of published adventures usually aren't thinking of every conceivable party and player build. You can easily replace any non-plot relevant instance of 'magic weapon' with a weapon appropriate to the characters in your party. Some published adventures cite opportunities to add loot from random tables - those are good moment to throw in tailored loot.

There's a concept in ttrpg that I hold dear to my heart: Be a fan of the characters.

Let players earn stuff that helps make their characters cooler, tell their story, and live out their fantasy. Don't just shower the party with ideal magical items willy-nilly, of course. Magical items are more fun when acquiring and using them is memorable. And sometimes it's interesting to get something powerful that you weren't expecting that changes the way you think about your character and your strategies. But, overall I'd encourage DMs to offer opportunities for players to earn loot that suits them, if it remotely makes sense.

Merudo

2020-10-19, 06:10 PM

Part of that is there are few magical polearms in the DMG. Swords, axes, and hammers are sexy fantasy staples, especially swords. It's Swords n Sorcery, not Halberds n Hocus Pocus, alas. Despite the fact that polearms were the real weapons of war, while swords, axes, hammers and the like were typically special purpose weapons, sidearms, or status symbols, polearms get short shrift in fantasy fiction. As a result writers, including D&D adventure writers, tend to just kind of forget about them. It's kind of refreshing that PAM is so good in 5e--it lets D&D hew closer to history for a little while. Pun intended. But I digress.

I'm actually fine with the DMG having few unique magical polearms. My main concern is that the total absence of magical polearms invalidates whole builds against a possibly large number of foes with nonmagical weapon resistance / immunities.

For example, in Tomb of Annihilation, the last boss is flat out immune to nonmagical weapon. And in Descent into Avernus, many devils are resistant to nonmagical weapon damage.

The lack of magical polearms is especially bad to newcomers, who might want to create a cool polearm build, but not realize the adventure is going to screw them over by not providing them any magical weapon compatible with their build.

To some extend, the necessity of a magical weapon is recognized by the D&D Adventurer League. In most season of AL, there exists a reliable way to get a +1 weapon, +1 rod of the pact keeper, or a +1 wand of the war mage, even if the adventure ran doesn't feature such items.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-19, 06:16 PM

AFB but IIRC there's actually no default here--Xanathar's doesn't say a word about ingredient quantity and neither does the DMG.

Also, it's not entirely in the hands of the DM--players can pursue information through whatever means they choose, including the Sage background by the way. Players aren't required to just sit there passively waiting for a juicy secret to land in their lap.

It says that making an item requires an ingredient, which requires a quest. Sure, a DM could allow you to harvest enough to create nearly unlimited items...but why?

And the very existence of that formula is entirely up to the DM. And there's nothing a player can do to change that. Magic items (and formulae count as such) only exist if and where the DM says they do. So yes, it is entirely in the hands of the DM. If there's no information to pursue (which is the case in 99.999999% of published adventures), there's nothing a player can do to change that without asking the DM to include it.

cutlery

2020-10-19, 06:19 PM

The lack of magical polearms is especially bad to newcomers, who might want to create a cool polearm build, but not realize the adventure is going to screw them over by not providing them any magical weapon compatible with their build.

New players that select pole arms for aesthetic reasons and not because the internets tell them that it is the most optimal weapon seems like a rather sparsely populated cell.

HappyDaze

2020-10-19, 07:00 PM

The lack of magical polearms is especially bad to newcomers, who might want to create a cool polearm build, but not realize the adventure is going to screw them over by not providing them any magical weapon compatible with their build.

IME, it's not the newcomers that get their heart set on "a cool polearm build"; it's the powergamers that have to have PAM for maximum DPS. Newcomers will usually just pick up and go with whatever magic weapon they find so long as they can make use of it with their main attack stat (so pretty much any magical melee weapon if that stat is Strength).

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-19, 07:04 PM

IME, it's not the newcomers that get their heart set on "a cool polearm build"; it's the powergamers that have to have PAM for maximum DPS. Newcomers will usually just pick up and go with whatever magic weapon they find so long as they can make use of it with their main attack stat (so pretty much any magical melee weapon if that stat is Strength).

Can (mostly) confirm--I think in 5+ years (something like 12 groups, mostly new players), exactly 2(? maybe just 1, brain is not braining currently) chose polearms. And that's partially due to a mini with a polearm, not because they particularly wanted to use one.

Mercureality

2020-10-19, 07:31 PM

IME, it's not the newcomers that get their heart set on "a cool polearm build"; it's the powergamers that have to have PAM for maximum DPS. Newcomers will usually just pick up and go with whatever magic weapon they find so long as they can make use of it with their main attack stat (so pretty much any magical melee weapon if that stat is Strength).

For me, it was both. I came back to 5e after a long absence from D&D in love the idea of a full plate wearin' bad-ass toting a pollaxe to battle, like real knights on foot often did. I was excited to learn that not only would I not be hamstringing my character, I'd be playing optimally!

Pex

2020-10-19, 09:14 PM

Interesting variation on OP's question:

What about unique weapons which are iconic items, legendary items or even artifacts?

For examples: if it's present as part of a module's storyline, would you change the Hammer of Thunderbolt into a spear because the Paladin has taken Polearm Master?

That's presuming that particular character is the one to wield it, but it's not a bad assumption depending on the campaign. Since the artifact is the McGuffin and it being an artifact it will be powerful/useful enough to compensate. Also, presumably it's the end of the campaign or particular story arc to be disappeared, returned to owner, heroic sacrificed, etc. The player isn't using it for long.

For something Legendary that's different. Give the paladin a Holy Avenger Glaive when you're ready to give him a Holy Avenger. It fits thematically. He was destined for that weapon. He earned it. However, it's not necessary in the general to give a pole arm version of a weapon specifically mentioned in the DMG. You don't need a Glaive Frostbrand or Halberd Sunblade. What's important is that the Pole Arm Master character gets a magical pole arm appropriate to the level and campaign even if the DM has to make it up on what it can do. With that, the artifact McGuffin could also be something the DM made up so it can be an Artifact Glaive or Halberd of what ever artifact level power the DM wants.

Right, because all I ever do is talk about how martials are too strong and need to be nerfed.

PAM in 5e is 100% a munchkin choice - and one of the counterbalances to that munchkinery (whether or not it was designed as such) is the relative scarcity of those weapons. Take the feat, use the weapons when available, but have a plan for when they aren't. You might have to use a stave or spear - you still get some of the feat's bonuses in those cases.

It was much the same with exotic weapons in 3e.

I prefer DMs who respect their players and don't assume skullduggery for every build choice they make. If you hate the feat so much ban it. Problem solved. When it's available and the player takes it you don't passive aggressively punish him for it by never giving him a magical version of his weapon of choice.

MaxWilson

2020-10-19, 10:00 PM

Hael

2020-10-20, 03:11 AM

For me, it was both. I came back to 5e after a long absence from D&D in love the idea of a full plate wearin' bad-ass toting a pollaxe to battle, like real knights on foot often did. I was excited to learn that not only would I not be hamstringing my character, I'd be playing optimally!

I am the same. Poleaxes are by far my favorite weapon and i used to run them on all my martial characters in 2e. In 5e, we’ve homebrewed a number of weapons. So for instance a Pollaxe is 2d6 but 5’ range.

Over the years, we’ve flirted with complete realism rebalances, but in general it’s just too much annoyance and hassle for new players at the table who have to relearn everything (like for instance that bows are strength based and swords are more dex based).

Tanarii

2020-10-20, 06:55 AM

Can (mostly) confirm--I think in 5+ years (something like 12 groups, mostly new players), exactly 2(? maybe just 1, brain is not braining currently) chose polearms. And that's partially due to a mini with a polearm, not because they particularly wanted to use one.

Yeah, in a no feat campaign, the incidents of polearm characters was comparatively low. Greatsword and Greataxe characters were still somewhat common, but nowhere near as common as in a feat campaign.

Because PAM and GWM are so OP, they significantly skew the results when I was playing in AL. The frequency of polearm users, and now spear and shield users, is almost exclusively because of mechanical advantage.

That's fine, but it needs to be recognized.

Sigreid

2020-10-20, 06:58 AM

Takeaway: it's okay to hand out tailored magic weapons, or not. Either is fine as long as the DM has legitimate reasons not based on passive aggression.

There is another side of this whole thing as well. While I run published adventures when I'm being lazy, I prefer to run a campaign that is focused on player motivations. So, if the player wants to get or do something in particular that provides me the seed I need to create an adventure that I know the party will be invested in.

I mean, I'm in a Descent into Avernus campaign right now where my character has already informed the party that if he finds a way out of Hell, he's taking it whether the objective that brought them here is completed or not. Hell sucks, he doesn't like it there. He doesn't have any personal reason to be the grand champion.

GeoffWatson

2020-10-20, 07:39 AM

When I was still a new DM and scared to deviate from the module (because what if I accidentally break something that occurs later?), I didn't tailor the loot at all. Now my party has many magical daggers just because that's what was in the rewards for what they did. None of them are rogues or dex fighters or really use daggers as more than backup weapons. They've handed some of them off to allied npcs as a minor damage boost for when those characters help out in battle. The general vibe when handing that loot out has been a real flat "meh" of disappointment.

I remember back in 1st edition, we were playing Pool of Radiance, and we found twelve magical daggers before we found any other magical weapon. It was silly as only one PC could use them (my thief), as the other PCs were three Cavaliers, two Paladin-Cavaliers, a Monk, and some spellcasters, none of whom would use daggers.

Sigreid

2020-10-20, 08:26 AM

I remember back in 1st edition, we were playing Pool of Radiance, and we found twelve magical daggers before we found any other magical weapon. It was silly as only one PC could use them (my thief), as the other PCs were three Cavaliers, two Paladin-Cavaliers, a Monk, and some spellcasters, none of whom would use daggers.

They would if faced with a werewolf...

Unoriginal

2020-10-20, 08:32 AM

cutlery

2020-10-20, 08:58 AM

I prefer DMs who respect their players and don't assume skullduggery for every build choice they make. If you hate the feat so much ban it. Problem solved. When it's available and the player takes it you don't passive aggressively punish him for it by never giving him a magical version of his weapon of choice.

I tell players not to expect any particular magic items. They shouldn't expect to have all their attunement slots filled, either. They don't get to plan around a magic-mart. If that means the build the internet told them is perfect might not work, too bad.

PAM is strong. Players picking it might not get the perfect pole arm of their dreams quickly, or ever. They might die, too. Using a battleaxe or scimitar is probably preferable to dying.

It isn't like 80% of the monsters in the MM have resistance to non-magical weapons, and it isn't like some magical weapon fairy is going to distribute magical weapons of the preferred type throughout hell or the underdark with the party in mind.

Every paladin has magic weapon on their spell list, every blade warlock has access to improved pact weapon

And, of course, anyone can have a weapon silvered for 100gp.

Yeah, in a no feat campaign, the incidents of polearm characters was comparatively low. Greatsword and Greataxe characters were still somewhat common, but nowhere near as common as in a feat campaign.

Because PAM and GWM are so OP, they significantly skew the results when I was playing in AL. The frequency of polearm users, and now spear and shield users, is almost exclusively because of mechanical advantage.

That's fine, but it needs to be recognized.

Of course that's the case.

It's not quite as bad as spiked chain builds in 3e, but it's close.

Xervous

2020-10-20, 09:33 AM

Of course that's the case.

It's not quite as bad as spiked chain builds in 3e, but it's close.

Okay I’ll bite. What makes it about spiked chains and not just 3.5 trippers in general? The chain feels more like stick and shield in the context of tripping being PAM.

Elbeyon

2020-10-20, 09:55 AM

It is weird to make a weapon rare so that the fighter can not use their chosen combat style rather than trying to balance any perceived imbalances elsewhere. A gm saying not to expect any particular magic item is different than saying they do not like a feat and give less polearms to weaken a chosen feat. The gm should be clear that they are targeting a character type they do not want around.

cutlery

2020-10-20, 10:36 AM

Okay I’ll bite. What makes it about spiked chains and not just 3.5 trippers in general? The chain feels more like stick and shield in the context of tripping being PAM.

The chain was, for a time, a particularly ultramunchkin exotic weapon that, paired with enlarge could get you 15' of reach and all the AOOs in the universe, in part because the chain also let you attack/threaten adjacent foes. Most other reach weapons (including pole arms) did not threaten adjacent squares.

This is probably the prime reason polearms weren't super common in 3.x; you'd need to drop them or hold them in one hand while using a dagger or shortsword or something if an enemy closed - or play the 5' step back and attack trick over and over. Spiked chains let you skip all of that and just swing at whatever. Basically, every reach weapon in 5e is as good as a spiked chain, but the action economy of reactions makes them less over the top amazing (PAM aside).

Xervous

2020-10-20, 11:09 AM

The chain was, for a time, a particularly ultramunchkin exotic weapon that, paired with enlarge could get you 15' of reach and all the AOOs in the universe, in part because the chain also let you attack/threaten adjacent foes. Most other reach weapons (including pole arms) did not threaten adjacent squares.

This is probably the prime reason polearms weren't super common in 3.x; you'd need to drop them or hold them in one hand while using a dagger or shortsword or something if an enemy closed - or play the 5' step back and attack trick over and over. Spiked chains let you skip all of that and just swing at whatever. Basically, every reach weapon in 5e is as good as a spiked chain, but the action economy of reactions makes them less over the top amazing (PAM aside).

Again, seems like distortion when AoOs are limited by dex which has been decreased by enlarge, armor spikes were also core, and I’ll shelve the statistical details to get back to the topic.

If a player announces their intent to focus on a single weapon type it’s the GMs burden to clarify up front whether or not the player can expect to find relevant magic weaponry for that concept. You state the intrigue focused noble won’t fit in the exploration campaign, paladin doesn’t fit for a plot that assumes the players work for Asmodeus, warn a potential artificer that this is a low magic gladiator plot... The player deserves to generally know what game they’re playing and if their character assumptions are misplaced from the get go.

cutlery

2020-10-20, 11:16 AM

Again, seems like distortion when AoOs are limited by dex which has been decreased by enlarge, armor spikes were also core, and I’ll shelve the statistical details to get back to the topic.

Enlarge didn't reduce dex, but there is a size penalty to AC. Also, whirlwind attack worked swimmingly.

If a player announces their intent to focus on a single weapon type it’s the GMs burden to clarify up front whether or not the player can expect to find relevant magic weaponry for that concept. You state the intrigue focused noble won’t fit in the exploration campaign, paladin doesn’t fit for a plot that assumes the players work for Asmodeus, warn a potential artificer that this is a low magic gladiator plot... The player deserves to generally know what game they’re playing and if their character assumptions are misplaced from the get go.

That's all fair, and it is as much on the player to make that plain as it is on the DM; in pretty much the same way they'd need to do that for a character that planned to rely on hand crossbows.

They shouldn't just assume that specific items will show up for them without asking; and when they do ask a "you may or may not find one" answer is perfectly valid.

They aren't owed a +1 glaive simply because they chose a particular feat.

Pex

2020-10-20, 11:41 AM

They aren't owed a +1 glaive simply because they chose a particular feat.

They aren't absolutely denied either. However, no magic item exists without the DM's permission, so the burden of the player getting one or not lies with the DM. It is better to play with your players instead of against them.

Xervous

2020-10-20, 11:41 AM

Enlarge didn't reduce dex, but there is a size penalty to AC. Also, whirlwind attack worked swimmingly.

I’m not calling distortion without reason (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargePerson.htm) but again this is of tangential relevance. The ability score kludge of a tripping 3.5e fighter and its mountain of feats doesn’t translate perfectly to 5e where you get to keep your damage baseline and tack on an extra attack just for one feat and a specific weapon.

With so few choices to be made in 5e and the assumption of a stable baseline, feats like PAM and GWM lead to misaligned expectations. A GM may gravitate towards 5e for the promise of its normalized classes, but the player who sees an option to make his fighter more fightery (more damage) may think he’s just doing what the game expects by specializing in the only pillar available to his character. I’m going to discount bad intentions since problem players are another discussion entirely.

The one interesting thing I see here is the question of how far a GM should go with explaining game standards and expectations to players. Is it the burden of the player to inquire about the potential existence of magic forks on sticks? Is it good form for the GM to lay out magic item expectations during session 0, and how extensively? I really don’t see a clear cut answer as so many contributing factors will vary group to group.

Sception

2020-10-20, 11:55 AM

IMO, yes, magic items should be tailored to the party. And not just magic items, everything should be tailored to the party, and the party should be tailored to the adventure as well. Part of the campaign's narrative includes a town that was destroyed? Then the fighter who's backstory is that they were from a village that was destroyed is from that town. Party paladin's backstory includes that their mentor fell to the dark side and became an oath breaker? Now the big bad villain's lead general and chief advisor is that character's anti paladin former mentor instead of some random death knight.

I've got a dragonborn barbarian in my castle ravenloft campaign, who never knew his clan and was raised by humans. Well, now his ancestors are in the campaign as a group of dragonborn revenants who were defeated by strahd in the distant past, and, to bring the subject back to items, there will be a fancy heirloom magic maul carved from ancient dragon fang waiting for the player when he finds them and lifts the curse that binds their spirits to Barovia.

In general I find the magic items in pre-published adventures to be 1) too restrictive and 2) too generic. Sometimes there's an interesting item here or there that some portion of the campaign narrative revolves around, but more often it's a handful of magic swords, some gauntlets of ogre strength, some potions of healing, maybe a magic shield. A number of campaigns get better, or at least more interesting, if you not only tailor some of the generic magic items to the party but also re-randomize some of the rest.

...

Whether in pre-published or generic ad libbed campaigns, I generally try to make things a bit more flexible. In eberron or Ravnica, there will be opportunities to buy or commission minor and more generic uncommon items from magewright shops and guild merchants, so if players are just concerned about having a magic great weapon, long bow, polearm, or shield by mid levels, the'll have the opportunity. More esoteric and rare stuff might be found at adventurer's guild auctions - eg brought back from expeditions to Xen'Drik. Players might not find exactly what they want there, but rare and interesting items will be found. And if the party ends up with something rare but not usable to them, they'll have the opportunity to auction it off as well.

In more generic settings like Forgotten Realms, the party will have the opportunity to earn favors from more powerful factions, npcs, fiends, fey, celestials, or even deities, and if a mid level character still hasn't randomly stumbled across a magic weapon that fits their build then such a favor very well may take the form of enchanting existing equipment to make it magical, or at least informing the character of where such an item might be found, leading to a minor sidequest.

...

There's lots of ways to work that sort of thing into a campaign.

In principle I don't disagree with the idea that if a player chooses a restrictive build then there should be possible consequences from that choice, and those consequences might include appropriate magic equipment being rarer - ie, showing up later or requiring the party to go out of their way. Like, the treasure table's rolled a magic scimitar that nobody in the party is going to use, but you've heard of a legendary blacksmith at the top of Mount Sidequest who could reforge it into the head of a glaive. The consequences *shouldn't* be "this character will never get a magic weapon at all." At least, not imo.

Democratus

2020-10-20, 12:22 PM

The typical solution at tables I run is for the PC to decide they want a magic polearm, then find out where they can get one.

After spending much coin and consulting lore masters, the PC discovers that the glaive master Sorren of Akadia is rumored to have been buried with his legendary weapon, Wind Reaver - in his high mountain tomb above the Vale of Issus.

This kind of PC-driven play has, in my experience, been the one that gives the most agency while also maintaining verisimilitude.

And it has the bonus of creating a new quest/adventure!

huttj509

2020-10-20, 01:27 PM

Democratus

2020-10-20, 01:47 PM

This can be less than viable with prepublished book adventures.

True. You might have to create an adventure for PCs who decide to take the initiative.

Or you could use a published adventure as the place where the PC's goal takes you.

At this point, swapping out a magic item in the written adventure keeps its integrity, since you are there for a specific PC-driven reason.

Though, frankly, it isn't very difficult to put together a fun 5-room dungeon as a side-quest when hunting down a specific item of legend.

Pex

2020-10-20, 02:32 PM

This can be less than viable with prepublished book adventures.

Why? What stops the DM from changing the magic weapon offered in a published adventure into a form a player would like?

Never mind. Misunderstood point of view.

MaxWilson

2020-10-20, 02:40 PM

If a player announces their intent to focus on a single weapon type it’s the GMs burden to clarify up front whether or not the player can expect to find relevant magic weaponry for that concept.

Is the burden really on the DM/GM though? IMO the burden is on the DM to ask the players, "What do you want to do or ask me?" and the burden is on the players to actually ask the questions they are interested in.

The one interesting thing I see here is the question of how far a GM should go with explaining game standards and expectations to players. Is it the burden of the player to inquire about the potential existence of magic forks on sticks? Is it good form for the GM to lay out magic item expectations during session 0, and how extensively? I really don’t see a clear cut answer as so many contributing factors will vary group to group.

Microscope has a cool procedure that might be worth stealing for a 5E campaign. At the beginning of a Microscope game, players go around the table adding an item to either a Yes or No column for this game, e.g. "No monarchies", or "Yes Cthulhu." If other players have objections you talk it out until some kind of consensus is reached--this isn't a dictatorship, by anyone--and then change it or don't. Things that you'd normally expect don't have to be explicitly Yes'ed but can be No'ed ("no sorcerers or warlocks"), and things you wouldn't expect don't have to be explicitedly No'ed but can be Yes'ed ("yes DM will ensure fighters all get magic weapons of their favored type by Tier 3ish").

Keep going around the table until it feels fair to stop.

x3n0n

2020-10-20, 02:42 PM

Why? What stops the DM from changing the magic weapon offered in a published adventure into a form a player would like?

I think the referent was "adding a significant side quest to a hardcover, some of which are not open enough to easily admit one, increasing the work involved for someone who may have chosen the hardcover to save prep time in the first place." Simply replacing the weapon doesn't have the same issues, for sure.

Edit: there could be some issues, though: one recent adventure has a specific magic weapon intended as a foil for the BBEG, including a printed cardstock handout. (Spoiler: it's a longsword.) There's a bit more work involved there, especially since there are legends about it to refluff, etc.

Tanarii

2020-10-20, 02:49 PM

Of course that's the case.

It's not quite as bad as spiked chain builds in 3e, but it's close.
Agreed. If a player came to me saying they wanted to play a landsknecht (sp?) or a Chinese rising-sun glaive/nagamaki wielder it'd be one thing. But that's not what is driving this sudden demand for "oh hey can we change modules to have more polearms ..."

I mea, the DM could just as easily counter with "no, but I'll let you take a different Feat called Longsword Master, use all the polearm master features as long as you fight Longsword only (and no shield) or in two hands (versatile). Bonus action attack with modifier, and provoke an OA when they enter reach."

AdAstra

2020-10-20, 06:37 PM

Agreed. If a player came to me saying they wanted to play a landsknecht (sp?) or a Chinese rising-sun glaive/nagamaki wielder it'd be one thing. But that's not what is driving this sudden demand for "oh hey can we change modules to have more polearms ..."

I mea, the DM could just as easily counter with "no, but I'll let you take a different Feat called Longsword Master, use all the polearm master features as long as you fight Longsword only (and no shield) or in two hands (versatile). Bonus action attack with modifier, and provoke an OA when they enter reach."

Wanting to have a cool and interesting character and wanting to have a powerful character are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, one is actively facilitated by the other, since powerful characters feel effectual and can more reliably succeed at their chosen specialties.

For example, I wanted to play as a holy knight character, and thought the idea of wielding a cross-like barred spear where the bars were like small warhammers (the pointy kind) would be pretty rad. So polearm master was a natural fit. Ironically, the campaign I was playing in actually had a large number of polearms I could use (CoS has two magical quarterstaves and one magic spear, and they are all really good magic items).

If the argument was "PAM is too strong so there shouldn't be magical polearms", then people should really be getting rid of all the strong magical quarterstaves that are in pretty much every module.

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-20, 06:45 PM

IMO, yes, magic items should be tailored to the party. In my experience, this is about 80% true. The other 20% is cool stuff players come up with when they use the various miscellaneous magic items that don't "fit" but they apply in novel ways.

Kill 'em with Mayonaisse! :smallbiggrin: (Jug of Alchemy, for example)

Gignere

2020-10-20, 06:45 PM

I’m pretty sure some of this ground was covered in the martials vs spell caster thread. I just don’t see the difference between providing a martial a magic spear say in the prepublished adventure you get to a point where the PCs need to teleport somewhere.

Unfortunately no one rolled a full caster or the full caster bit it and re-rolled to something else do you just say sorry guys you didn’t metagame properly so you fail on your quest or do you provide them with a Mcguffin or NPC to provide the spell?

How is this any different from providing a PAM fighter a magic pole arm? It’s just whether you as DM want the party to succeed or do you as DM enjoy the party failing because you felt they didn’t metagame in a way acceptable to you as DM?

Tanarii

2020-10-20, 06:59 PM

Wanting to have a cool and interesting character and wanting to have a powerful character are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Of course not. That's basically a rewording of the Stormwind fallacy.

But conversely, like the counterpoint to the stormwind fallacy fallacy, you cannot attribute wanting to have a powerful character and then going out and building a cool and interesting character around it to anything but that. Similar to optimizing a character first then going out and then finding a way to build roleplaying hooks that fit it. It's not bad to do so. But let's recognize what it is, because it affects the possible actual solutions if a problem arises because of it.

So, if the complaint is at its heart "I'm optimizing based on a powerful feat and now I can't find magical weapons for it" there's a couple of ways to approach fixing that.

- play without the optional feats (or without the one feat) so it's not optimized around so often
- nerf the one feat to bring it in line, so people don't optimize around it so often
- boost other feats so they're equally optimized around
- open up the one feat so it's features can be used with more weapons
- change the weapons in prewritten modules and rolled tables
- modify the weapon types allowed to certain kinds of magic weapons

If the complaint is "I'm building a glaive character because I was inspired by this one 80s martial arts movie I can't remember the name of" (actual inspiration I've had) then the solution might be as simple as allowing it as a Kensai weapon. :smallwink:

MaxWilson

2020-10-20, 07:03 PM

I’m pretty sure some of this ground was covered in the martials vs spell caster thread. I just don’t see the difference between providing a martial a magic spear say in the prepublished adventure you get to a point where the PCs need to teleport somewhere.

Unfortunately no one rolled a full caster or the full caster bit it and re-rolled to something else do you just say sorry guys you didn’t metagame properly so you fail on your quest or do you provide them with a Mcguffin or NPC to provide the spell?

"Sorry guys, they just blew up your home planet but since you are all Barbarians, now that (NPC captor) is dead you have no one to power the spelljammer to get you back home. I guess you're stuck here on the moon for the foreseeable future. Do you want me to narrate an appropriate end to the tragic story here and stop, or do you guys want to treat this as a new opportunity for adventure and explore the moon? Let's take a vote."

What's wrong with letting players fail sometimes? It's not like they have any right to be surprised at this outcome.

Willie the Duck

2020-10-20, 08:50 PM

That said, I side with Willie the Duck on this matter.
I appreciate the knee-jerk vote of confidence, but I've been on vacation. :smalltongue::smallbiggrin: Who did you think was me with whom you were agreeing?

As for my opinion -- As others have said, the #1 real solution for the OP is a session 0 -- let everyone know what's going down, how you'd like to move forward, get their input, make a decision, and let your players make informed decisions.

With regards to published modules: they really do play favorites, and I think if you play them as-is, you should really make sure that anyone considering PAM or any other weapon/shield/armor focus knows what they are getting into.

On the broader topic of weapon-specific feats, magic item rarity, and game design: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a game system --with character creation/development aspects that somewhat 'lock you in' to a given strategy (or at least make it wasted investment if you don't stay locked in)-- where one strategy might be 'really good at outset, but slowly becomes obsolete' (2wf in 5e), another might be 'really good using base equipment, but upgrade equipment is rare' (PAM), and another being 'ho-hum using base equipment, but some of the best upgrade equipment only shows up here' (longswords). That sounds fine. Meaningful differences in outcomes based on meaningful decisions. It certainly works better in 5e (where there are about a dozen workarounds to not having a magic weapon, much less the right magic weapon), than AD&D/2E where not having a +2 weapon going into a specific fight might mean you literally cannot defeat an encounter* and even the fighter has a very real possibility of not being proficient in the +2 weapon you do end up finding. Overall this isn't a problem. I tend to agree with whomever said PAM wasn't likely specifically intended to be balanced by low magic item frequency, if only because I doubt they expected everyone to use the magic items tables as-is (seriously, when one group is going to have vorpal warhammers and flametongue sickle, the next group doesn't use magic item, the next one has a magic item market in towns over 1000, an the fourth plays the modules 'as is,' using magic item frequency as a codified balancing mechanism becomes more noise than signal).

Regarding PAM in general: I don't dislike the feat (or what it does) in principle. I do dislike that the designers made it the only one. If there was one for polearms, one for axes, one for hammers, and so on (and not an official ruling against the sword-and-board one), and then clearer support for those who chose not to specialize, I think that would be a better theoretical version of the game. As it stands, every group of experienced players I play with have come to think of PAM as he 'cheeze' martial* option. And honestly that isn't fair, but it keeps happening.
*And yes to whomever implied that this was cutting off the bud that grew higher than the others amongst martial builds when there are spellcasters in the mix as well. That is true. The existence of that other source of problems does not make this one not be real.

Find a weapons and armor random generator chart online and reroll all preset weapon and armor choices until you get something that falls within the allowed weapon types for that type of magic item.

Or to really re-randomize, find the magic item table in the DMG that magic item comes from and randomly generate a replacement off that table.
Good options. I certainly used to do that when we added or subtracted weapons such that the DMG distribution didn't make sense (such as in 2E when The Complete Fighter's Guide or the like added a bunch of new weapons).

Just wanted to call this out because it's made me realize that RAW = Originalist and RAI = Non-Originalist and we've all been secretely practicing to argue in front of the US Supreme Court this whole time. Do actual Lawyers play a lot of DnD? I feel like actual Lawyers probably play a lot of DnD.
At work I have a team with 6 lawyers, and I believe 3 of them play (/have played/would play if they had time). Not outrageous, but certainly above the average population. OTOH, I also have 11 programmers and related IT professionals, and 10 of them play (/have played, etc.). Make of that what you will. :smallbiggrin:

Pex

2020-10-20, 09:16 PM

I think the referent was "adding a significant side quest to a hardcover, some of which are not open enough to easily admit one, increasing the work involved for someone who may have chosen the hardcover to save prep time in the first place." Simply replacing the weapon doesn't have the same issues, for sure.

Edit: there could be some issues, though: one recent adventure has a specific magic weapon intended as a foil for the BBEG, including a printed cardstock handout. (Spoiler: it's a longsword.) There's a bit more work involved there, especially since there are legends about it to refluff, etc.

Oh, yeah, I can see that point. I'll scratch the comment.

AdAstra

2020-10-21, 12:00 AM

I feel as if it still hasn't been adequately addressed that one of the most ridiculous and clearly munchkin-y implementations of PAM, quarterstaff and shield, is fully supported in terms of magic items.

A lot of people are arguing on the basis of balance, but if we are, then there is still a major problem with adventures and their magical items. If we are going with the tack that PAM is too strong, and that having fewer magical items is a counterbalance to that, the prevalence of magical quarterstaffs directly interferes with that balance, and in a way that strains believability.

Why is a Glaive user given worse magic items than the guy running around twirling a magic stick? Because I can see little reason either balance-wise or story-wise as to how this would be the case.

As an example, I mentioned Curse of Strahd. That module has three magical one-handed polearms specifically mentioned. A +2 spear that gives you THP with every kill, a quarterstaff that restore HP with charges and hits, and a Staff of Power. The first and last option especially are easily comparable to the Sunsword you can also get, and would be stronger were it not for the undead focus of the campaign.

GeoffWatson

2020-10-21, 01:15 AM

None of them would or none of them could?

Using "commoner" weapons was against the Cavalier code of conduct, so they'd lose XP for using one. I can't remember why the other characters didn't want one.

Dark.Revenant

2020-10-21, 03:03 AM

It's the DM's duty to inform the players about how they run the game, and it's the players' duty to abide by those rules once they agree to them.

More to the point of the thread: In my experience, the game will not be damaged because of a player's access to an optimal weapon for their build. It isn't something any DM should actively avoid.

However, the game is more mechanically interesting if the choice of equipment is mechanically meaningful. A PAM-user who finds a powerful magic greatsword but only has a mundane glaive has a meaningful choice to make with regards to which weapon to use in combat. Perhaps that same character might find a magic item that can cast Magic Weapon once per dawn? The other solution is to just grant a whole bunch of magic weapons of unequal power and capability; the same purpose is achieved.

There is a trend of aversion towards awarding too many magic items to a group, but you really can't award too many magic weapons. It's not like you can really benefit that much statistically from having a whole bunch of them *cough*except the staff of defense*cough*. I find it's the magic armor and the various wondrous items that you really have to look out for, since they can boost capabilities and especially defenses in ways that make a very profound impact on a character's power level.

Of course, it can be hard to make magic weapons feel special if you give out a lot of them, even if it's ultimately healthy for gameplay. If the prestige of magical weapons is important to you, make them really special and make them useful for the heroes, even if it's not strictly optimal for them. Just remember that no party will ever get excited over an item that they straight up can't use, so I strongly recommend against dropping useless loot unless it's for a one-time gag.

Tanarii

2020-10-21, 08:30 AM

I feel as if it still hasn't been adequately addressed that one of the most ridiculous and clearly munchkin-y implementations of PAM, quarterstaff and shield, is fully supported in terms of magic items.
Agreed. Any DM that doesn't house rule away shield and PAM shenanigans (with staff or spear now), or disallow any one of the large number of magical staves that would be ridiculous to use as a quarter staff, is getting what they asked for,

Just remember that no party will ever get excited over an item that they straight up can't use, so I strongly recommend against dropping useless loot unless it's for a one-time gag.
There is no such thing as a useless magic item, unless your campaign doesn't feature non-hostile NPCs in any meaningful capacity.

Democratus

2020-10-21, 08:53 AM

There is no such thing as a useless magic item, unless your campaign doesn't feature non-hostile NPCs in any meaningful capacity.

Was thinking the same thing.

A valuable lesson learned through many campaigns...even a cursed magic weapon is still a magic weapon! :smallbiggrin:

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-21, 09:18 AM

The problem is that the most munchkin-y option of the bunch, in terms of effectiveness+goofiness, quarterstaff-and-shield, actually is pretty well supported magic item-wise. There are tons of magical quarterstaffs. Now that spears are at long last included, it's not so goofy. Now, where are all of the magical spears other than the spear of backbiting ... poking things with a stick has a very long tradition ... even when This Is Sparta is not the game one is playing.

1. Magic items are truly random/organically determined.
2. Magic items are tailored, more or less.
I have seen both approaches work.

but DMs should be free to adjust what's available. I agree. If I roll on the DMG table and get a 73, and the item makes no sense for the party, I'll usually look at 37 and see if it's a better fit. Or 74 or 72 ...

There's nothing at all contrived about giving a player exactly the weapon they want when they had to beat its' current wielder to get it.

You want a magic blowgun? Sure, I'll fight you for it. Yeah, that's a fun approach. :smallsmile:

Let it be resolved that: The promise of D&D is that all the important problems in life can be solved with violence. I'll go with "many" rather than "all" since the published adventures don't just have PCs slay stuff all of the time.

Yeah. Crafting is designed to force you to adventure, not play downtime engineer. Yes. Bring me a sea hag's liver; it's what I need to make that potion of growth ... is a fine advenure hook

I think players shouldn't expect a perfectly custom made magic item of any kind, ever, unless they happen to be the one making it.

There are plenty of ways around the need-magic-to-damage-certain-monsters problem. also agree with this.
Besides, what happens if only one magic polearm is found and three players want it? Magic items are like a box of chocolates. Run, Forest, Run!

The existence of a formula is [I]entirely in the hands of the DM. As is the availability of the exotic ingredient. And that's one exotic ingredient (ie one quest) per item, at least by default. {snip} But if you're adventuring in dwarf territory, don't expect to find lots of powerful bows. And vice versa for elves and battleaxes. A rational approach.

Now you've got me thinking about elves making elegant enchanted axes that are useful for slicing through unsightly vines or unwanted trees or something, and dwarves making dynamite loaded crossbows. Elves would use a machete, but I like your dwarf idea there ...
There's a concept in ttrpg that I hold dear to my heart: Be a fan of the characters. Let players earn stuff that helps make their characters cooler, tell their story, and live out their fantasy. Don't just shower the party with ideal magical items willy-nilly, of course. Magical items are more fun when acquiring and using them is memorable. And sometimes it's interesting to get something powerful that you weren't expecting that changes the way you think about your character and your strategies. But, overall I'd encourage DMs to offer opportunities for players to earn loot that suits them, if it remotely makes sense.[/QUOTE] And the earn it bit strike me as a key to making this fun.

@For Willie The Duck
Hmm, I suspect that whomever I was agreeing with (ad astra?) has the same avatar as you do. I tend to associate that avatar with you.

Tanarii

2020-10-21, 09:31 AM

Now that spears are at long last included, it's not so goofy. Now, where are all of the magical spears other than the spear of backbiting ... poking things with a stick has a very long tradition ... even when This Is Sparta is not the game one is playing.Using a 1H spear and shield in the style of a 2H quarterstaff isn't just as goofy as it was when it was a 1H quarterstaff.

I mean, sure, fantasy and all, but damage should be reduced to 1 point with no modifier if they want us to be able to suspend our disbelief here.

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-21, 11:40 AM

Using a 1H spear and shield in the style of a 2H quarterstaff isn't just as goofy as it was when it was a 1H quarterstaff. Can you rephrase that please? I think that my puzzlement was in quarterstaff ever being in polearm mastery in the first place. (I had some modest training in staff fighting years ago, and it makes my head hurt). The one-handed bit was just icing on the cake, and yet, since in that case both attacks to bludgeoning damage, there was an odd mechanical consistency.

I mean, sure, fantasy and all, but damage should be reduced to 1 point with no modifier
No
Also, using the shield first as a bonus actoin with shield master is the smart to apply that feat, since it is shield Mastery, and the dumbacity involved in Crawford's change of mind is yet another case of just bad judgment, failure to read the PHB, and FFS, the spear whould have been in Pole Arm mastery list from the get go.
A spear is the original pole arm, eh? And their should be a martial spear that does 1d8/1d10 versatile {rants and foams at the mouth as he drives off into the sunset ...}

MaxWilson

2020-10-21, 11:43 AM

There is a trend of aversion towards awarding too many magic items to a group, but you really can't award too many magic weapons. It's not like you can really benefit that much statistically from having a whole bunch of them *cough*except the staff of defense*cough*.

Unless you're a Necromancer...

micahaphone

2020-10-21, 12:00 PM

It sounds like I'm reigniting some older thing, but what exactly is wrong with spear and shield, or even stick and shield? Both of those exist IRL*, and it seems like they don't benefit from PAM as much as the reach based weapons, as quarterstaff or spear can't get GWM and the extra reaction attack doesn't combo with Sentinel at 5 ft range.

*Everyone knows the spartans for spear and shield, and for stick and shield, there are probably are better examples out there, but here's 2 students practicing one fighting style of stick and shield. The shields are just thai pads, and the sticks are padded†, but it is a legitimate martial art. I guess you could argue that those sticks aren't long enough to be quarterstaves but I believe similar tactics could be used with a longer stick.
And the BA "flip it around" hit makes more sense with a smaller weapon than a big one - I'll post another video example‡ but I've honestly always disliked the "tornado spin above the head" visualization of using the butt of a halberd to strike an enemy.

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

https://youtu.be/u39wn-F79O8

† let it be said that padded sticks hurt like hell and I don't like sparring with them because everyone immediately thinks "oh it's okay to go hard now" and next thing I know the back of my hand is sore for 3 weeks.

‡ please note I've been told by some people that "punyo" is a spanish slang term for a man's **** in some central or south american cultures. Be warned about the frustrations that come from spain spreading their language everywhere!

Xervous

2020-10-21, 12:19 PM

It sounds like I'm reigniting some older thing, but what exactly is wrong with spear and shield, or even stick and shield? Both of those exist IRL*, and it seems like they don't benefit from PAM as much as the reach based weapons, as quarterstaff or spear can't get GWM and the extra reaction attack doesn't combo with Sentinel at 5 ft range.

*Everyone knows the spartans for spear and shield, and for stick and shield, there are probably are better examples out there, but here's 2 students practicing one fighting style of stick and shield. The shields are just thai pads, and the sticks are padded†, but it is a legitimate martial art. I guess you could argue that those sticks aren't long enough to be quarterstaves but I believe similar tactics could be used with a longer stick.
And the BA "flip it around" hit makes more sense with a smaller weapon than a big one - I'll post another video example but I've honestly always disliked the "tornado spin above the head" visualization of using the butt of a halberd to strike an enemy.

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

https://youtu.be/u39wn-F79O8

† let it be said that padded sticks hurt like hell and I don't like sparring with them because everyone immediately thinks "oh it's okay to go hard now" and next thing I know the back of my hand is sore for 3 weeks.

Some players/GMs are averse to large numerical discrepancies in combat performance. Large is subjective. 5e made a big pitch about normalizing everyone’s numbers so there’s an expectation that there shouldn’t be outliers.

Add to this the hazy use case and the room for grumbling and accusations of munchkin will fly

Tanarii

2020-10-21, 01:14 PM

Can you rephrase that please? I think that my puzzlement was in quarterstaff ever being in polearm mastery in the first place. (I had some modest training in staff fighting years ago, and it makes my head hurt). The one-handed bit was just icing on the cake, and yet, since in that case both attacks to bludgeoning damage, there was an odd mechanical consistency. Yes, I made a typo. Spear is just as goofy 1H as QS 1H. PAM butt-end attacks should be restricted to 2H. For both QS and spear.

A spear is the original pole arm, eh? And their should be a martial spear that does 1d8/1d10 versatile {rants and foams at the mouth as he drives off into the sunset ...}
Sure as long as it didn't get Reach when used 1H, that'd be fine.

Or it could be Special: This weapon has Reach 1H when used as part of a military shield wall formation.

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-21, 01:53 PM

Yes, I made a typo. Spear is just as goofy 1H as QS 1H. PAM butt-end attacks should be restricted to 2H. For both QS and spear. Sensible and consistent.

Sure as long as it didn't get Reach when used 1H, that'd be fine. Or it could be Special: This weapon has Reach 1H when used as part of a military shield wall formation. Too fiddly for the scale of the game we are discussing - I like your idea on 'no reach when one handed, yes reach with two handed' better for the martial weapon spear I described as what is missing from the weapons table (IMO).

Tanarii

2020-10-21, 03:33 PM

Sensible and consistent.
Too fiddly for the scale of the game we are discussing - I like your idea on 'no reach when one handed, yes reach with two handed' better for the martial weapon spear I described as what is missing from the weapons table (IMO).
It'd probably be fine as a 1d6 reach 1H. I'm sure there's plenty of room for abuse there with stacking bonuses to damage or some such, but as a baseline weapon it'd be consistent with the step up to Martial, or the step down from Longsword etc 1H being 1d8.

AdAstra

2020-10-21, 03:33 PM

Yes, I made a typo. Spear is just as goofy 1H as QS 1H. PAM butt-end attacks should be restricted to 2H. For both QS and spear.

Sure as long as it didn't get Reach when used 1H, that'd be fine.

Or it could be Special: This weapon has Reach 1H when used as part of a military shield wall formation.

I always fluffed the PAM bonus action attack as a shield bash. Or in the case of my paladin, using the bar of their spear as a warhammer.

Going off Korvin’s idea, what if the martial spear was a 1d8 weapon where instead of versatile increasing damage, it just added reach? That way it’s not just an objectively better longsword (though I wouldn’t mind that, sword-wielders have had it too good for too long).

KorvinStarmast

2020-10-21, 04:09 PM

Going off Korvin’s idea, what if the martial spear was a 1d8 weapon where instead of versatile increasing damage, it just added reach? That way it’s not just an objectively better longsword (though I wouldn’t mind that, sword-wielders have had it too good for too long). I like that idea as well. :smallcool:

MaxWilson

2020-10-21, 05:59 PM

Some players/GMs are averse to large numerical discrepancies in combat performance. Large is subjective. 5e made a big pitch about normalizing everyone’s numbers so there’s an expectation that there shouldn’t be outliers.

Add to this the hazy use case and the room for grumbling and accusations of munchkin will fly

A common misconception, but Bounded Accuracy actually has nothing to do with normalizing PCs' bonuses and everything to do with normalizing task DCs and monsters' numbers, according to 5E designer Rodney Thompson's post explaining the term "bounded accuracy" (https://bluishcertainty.blogspot.com/2016/06/bounded-accuracy.html).

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don't have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

...Nonspecialized characters can more easily participate in many scenes. While it's true that increases in accuracy are real and tangible, it also means that characters can achieve a basic level of competence just through how players assign their ability bonuses. Although a character who gains a +6 bonus to checks made to hide might do so with incredible ease, the character with only a naked ability bonus still has a chance to participate. We want to use the system to make it so that specialized characters find tasks increasingly trivial, while other characters can still make attempts without feeling they are wasting their time.

The DM's monster roster expands, never contracts. Although low-level characters probably don't stack up well against higher-level monsters, thanks to the high hit points and high damage numbers of those monsters, as the characters gain levels, the lower-level monsters continue to be useful to the DM, just in greater numbers. While we might fight only four goblins at a time at 1st level, we might take on twelve of them at 5th level without breaking a sweat. Since the monsters don't lose the ability to hit the player characters—instead they take out a smaller percentage chunk of the characters' hit points—the DM can continue to increase the number of monsters instead of needing to design or find whole new monsters. Thus, the repertoire of monsters available for DMs to use in an adventure only increases over time, as new monsters become acceptable challenges and old monsters simply need to have their quantity increased.

Bounded accuracy makes it easier to DM and easier to adjudicate improvised scenes. After a short period of DMing, DMs should gain a clear sense of how to assign DCs to various tasks. If the DM knows that for most characters a DC of 15 is a mildly difficult check, then the DM starts to associate DC values with in-world difficulties. Thus, when it comes time to improvise, a link has been created between the difficulty of the challenge in the world (balancing as you run across this rickety bridge is pretty tough due to the breaking planks, especially if you're not a nimble character) and the target number. Since those target numbers don't change, the longer a DM runs his or her game, the easier it is going to be to set quick target numbers, improvise monster attack bonuses and AC, or determine just what kind of bonus a skilled NPC has to a particular check. The DM's understanding of how difficult tasks are ceases to be a moving target under a bounded accuracy system.

Emphasis mine.

In short, 5E's designers explicitly did not intend to equalize everyone's numbers, so it's no surprise if combat-specialized Sharpshooters do intend wind up punching above their weight class (and master thieves wind up breaking into nigh-impenetrable vaults with nigh-impossible locks). However, there will still be plenty of DMG-level-appropriate fights that the non-specialized PCs can win just through basic competency and HPs.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-21, 06:15 PM

In short, 5E's designers explicitly did not intend to equalize everyone's numbers, so it's no surprise if combat-specialized Sharpshooters do intend wind up punching above their weight class (and master thieves wind up breaking into nigh-impenetrable vaults with nigh-impossible locks). However, there will still be plenty of DMG-level-appropriate fights that the non-specialized PCs can win just through basic competency and HPs.

Yeah. Bounded accuracy was much more about "everyone can always contribute, including monsters" (bringing up the floor and letting even weaker monsters do something) than "put a cap on how good you can get".

Tanarii

2020-10-21, 07:40 PM

We want to use the system to make it so that specialized characters find tasks increasingly trivial, while other characters can still make attempts without feeling they are wasting their time.

If the DM knows that for most characters a DC of 15 is a mildly difficult check, then the DM starts to associate DC values with in-world difficulties.Its really scary that when they're going on about a concept of resolution, they don't even understand the math of their own system. DC 15 isn't a mildly difficult check in 5e, it's a fairly difficult check that only a specialist should consider attempting.

That same misunderstanding of their own system made its way into the PHB and DMG with DC 15 being labeled "Medium".

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-21, 07:57 PM

Its really scary that when they're going on about a concept of resolution, they don't even understand the math of their own system. DC 15 isn't a mildly difficult check in 5e, it's a fairly difficult check that only a specialist should consider attempting.

That same misunderstanding of their own system made its way into the PHB and DMG with DC 15 being labeled "Medium".

A DC 15 straight ability check is fairly difficult (at +5, that's a 45% chance of failure, at +0 it's a 75% chance of failure). A DC 15 ability check with proficiency is a relatively easy one. A +5 total modifier is pretty standard for normal characters (no expertise) at level 1. By high levels it just means having proficiency and no stat mod. And I'd say that in the context of not making checks for things DC 10 and below (which is the presented standard, as much as you disagree with it), a 50% chance of success is mildly difficult--it's as easy as you really want to be having people roll for. Any easier and it isn't worth it (by the DMG standards).

Unoriginal

2020-10-21, 08:00 PM

Its really scary that when they're going on about a concept of resolution, they don't even understand the math of their own system. DC 15 isn't a mildly difficult check in 5e, it's a fairly difficult check that only a specialist should consider attempting.

That same misunderstanding of their own system made its way into the PHB and DMG with DC 15 being labeled "Medium".

That's highly debatable.

Would you describe AC 15 as "fairly difficult to hit" and something that "only a specialist should consider attempting"?

Furthermore, would you describe a DC 15 save as "fairly difficult to hit" and something that "only a specialist should consider attempting"?

A DC 15 straight ability check is fairly difficult (at +5, that's a 45% chance of failure, at +0 it's a 75% chance of failure). A DC 15 ability check with proficiency is a relatively easy one. A +5 total modifier is pretty standard for normal characters (no expertise) at level 1. By high levels it just means having proficiency and no stat mod. And I'd say that in the context of not making checks for things DC 10 and below (which is the presented standard, as much as you disagree with it), a 50% chance of success is mildly difficult--it's as easy as you really want to be having people roll for. Any easier and it isn't worth it (by the DMG standards).

Well having 50% chance of both success and failure is quite literally a medium/mild difficulty.

Gignere

2020-10-21, 08:04 PM

That's highly debatable.

Would you describe AC 15 as "fairly difficult to hit" and something that "only a specialist should consider attempting"?

Furthermore, would you describe a DC 15 save as "fairly difficult to hit" and something that "only a specialist should consider attempting"?

In actual combat missing is pretty much a given even for best MMA fighters but imagine your everyday skills can you imagine missing half the times welding the iron in a skyscraper?

Even better example like how quickly will you be fired if half of your work has mistakes?

Essentially D&D has a better combat simulator than skill simulator. Skills should really follow a much more Gaussian distribution.

Unoriginal

2020-10-21, 08:11 PM

In actual combat missing is pretty much a given even for best MMA fighters but imagine your everyday skills can you imagine missing half the times welding the iron in a skyscraper?

1) 5e does not expect you to roll for everyday skills

2)What most people mean by "medium difficulty" is "someone who knows what they're doing will succeed at it every time", as in the in-between competence point between untrained and expert, but "medium difficulty" (also) factually describes something that you with a 50% chance of failure

Even better example like how quickly will you be fired if half of your work has mistakes?

PCs are unlikely to get fired from their downtime activities, where they're equally unlikely to encounter DC 15 ability checks.

Essentially D&D has a better combat simulator than skill simulator. Skills should really follow a much more Gaussian distribution.

Except that does not logically follow. You do NOT roll for things like wielding iron on a skyscraper. Unless if there is the equivalent of the skyscraper being in danger of falling and the PC is preventing it by wielding iron.

This is not 3.X where you roll for everything unless your mod is high enough you can take 10, and it isn't 4e where the task's difficulty augment proportionally to your mod so you'll always have the same chance of failures. The 5e ability check system is designed to provide tension in tense, heroic situations, to provide interesting, consequence-creating results when there is incertainity, and to handwave everyday stuff as something people with the capacities of the characters can accomplish without needing to roll to open a pickle jar.

Can we PLEASE not turn this thread into another round of "but the 5e skill system doesn't work"?

Tanarii

2020-10-21, 10:05 PM

A DC 15 straight ability check is fairly difficult (at +5, that's a 45% chance of failure, at +0 it's a 75% chance of failure). A DC 15 ability check with proficiency is a relatively easy one. A +5 total modifier is pretty standard for normal characters (no expertise) at level 1. By high levels it just means having proficiency and no stat mod. And I'd say that in the context of not making checks for things DC 10 and below (which is the presented standard, as much as you disagree with it), a 50% chance of success is mildly difficult--it's as easy as you really want to be having people roll for. Any easier and it isn't worth it (by the DMG standards).In other words, it's 50/50 for a specialist, and 25% for a non-specialist. Which is, as I said, something only a specialist should consider trying.

Bounded accuracy means we shouldn't assume bonuses on the DM side of the screen, but you did just that. It's not "Medium" until we start thinking about something a typical starting character can do one maybe 3 of their 4 skills (the ones they line up with their top one or two scores). For all other checks it's fairly difficult.

Edit: how on earth did we end up here? :smallyuk: We should probably start a new thread if we want to pursue this.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-10-21, 10:14 PM

Edit: how on earth did we end up here? :smallyuk: We should probably start a new thread if we want to pursue this.

Yeah, but I can't say I care enough to start or participate in one.

EggKookoo

2020-10-22, 05:28 AM

Edit: how on earth did we end up here? :smallyuk: We should probably start a new thread if we want to pursue this.

Is there a Godwin-equivalent for this? "As an GitP discussion grows longer, the probability of a debate arising over skill DCs approaches 1."

noob

2020-10-22, 05:33 AM

Is there a Godwin-equivalent for this? "As an GitP discussion grows longer, the probability of a debate arising over skill DCs approaches 1."

It is for 5e.
In the 3e part of GITP it is "any discussion involving even a single non caster devolves instantly into a discussion about comparing casters and non casters".

Personally I think magic swords being more common is half a holdover from previous editions half because most fiction involves more swords than other weapons.
Maybe people who are not the players actually feels the weight of the weapons they carry and so wants a weapon that performs great while being lightweight? (and polearms are not that)
There is ways to explain.

Unoriginal

2020-10-22, 05:42 AM

Is there a Godwin-equivalent for this? "As an GitP discussion grows longer, the probability of a debate arising over skill DCs approaches 1."

The four universal constants are Life, Death, Galactus and the 5e subforum's threads devolving into "but skill system"/"casters can do anything and are more important"/"here is a cherrypicked white room theorycrafting scenario showing X is OP"/"it's not realistic"/...

noob

2020-10-22, 05:49 AM

The four universal constants are Life, Death, Galactus and the 5e subforum's threads devolving into "but skill system"/"casters can do anything and are more important"/"here is a cherrypicked white room theorycrafting scenario showing X is OP"/"it's not realistic"/...

I did not even know Galactus was a synonym of taxes before.

Xervous

2020-10-22, 06:56 AM

Bounded Accuracy

It’s not about bounded accuracy nearly as much as it is about the contrasts drawn, implicit and explicit, with prior editions. They weren’t selling the Not DnD of 4e, nor the reams of dN tables spanning the TSR era, nor the potential for massive numerical outliers of 3.5e. Many people bought in on 5e because it permitted only so many inputs compared to 3.5e’s open ended nature. They brought in their range of expectations that the system did not intend to permit such gross outliers as that’s the part of marketing that appealed to them. They see a few narrow outliers and seize on them, the rest being history with munchkin, PAM, warlock dips and other such terms floating around.

Wheeling back around to the topic it boils down to GM and players being on the same page about the kind of game they’re playing. PAM is illegal? PAM is fair game? Loot is tailored? Loot is as per module or d%? There’s no one right way to run it, just give the players enough to understand, buy in and engage rather than be forced to attempt to comprehend Calvinball.