Does anyone else worry about finding other items when they take PAM?

[trtl]

Polearm Mastery is a pretty busted feat. Weaponizing your bonus actions is one of the best ways to increase your damage, and the other abilities it provides are also strong.

However, My DM hands out Magic Items mostly randomly. Rather than giving us a couple magic items that conveniently are the perfect fit for your build, we find a lot of magic items, many of which are of dubious value, and it's up to us to make the most of it.

For the record, I love this, by far the most fun I've had with magic items. Additionally, the RP of switching weapons and load-outs as you find more loot is a lot more interesting than getting the same weapon, but more magical, every time you beat a BBEG.

However, I worry that if I take a PAM, then if I ever find, say a +1 longsword, I have to choose between the sword, and my feat. I don't notice anyone else talk about this when they talk about optimization. Is it because most DMs will just give you a magic polearm, or is PAM worth skipping other magical weapons for, or is it just "white room" optimizing?

Also, assuming I don't grab PAM, what are some other ways I can utilize my bonus action? (lvl 4 paladin).

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, assuming I don't grab PAM, what are some other ways I can utilize my bonus action? (lvl 4 paladin). Shield master allows you to shove enemies around or knock them down.
Fey Touched allows you to use the occasional misty step to move...but it costs a spell slot after the first one.
Telekinetic allows you to push or pull an enemy 5' as a bonus action. I have found that to be often a way to help an ally get away from an enemy and avoid a OA. You also get Mage Hand, which is a very nice utility cantrip.
A couple of times it allowed me to push an enemy off of a cliff or ledge.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Great Weapon Master gives a situational BA, though the power attack suffers from the same issue you mention, limited weapon selection. Interesting that the BA can be triggered with any melee weapon.

[LudicSavant]

However, I worry that if I take a PAM, then if I ever find, say a +1 longsword, I have to choose between the sword, and my feat. I don't notice anyone else talk about this when they talk about optimization. Is it because most DMs will just give you a magic polearm, or is PAM worth skipping other magical weapons for, or is it just "white room" optimizing?

I mentioned it when I was rating feats. But yeah, many people will talk about it under the assumption that it won't cause issues with your loot, because many GMs use tailored loot rather than true random loot.

That said, it's entirely fair for posters to say (for example) 'X is a great stealth ability' and not stop to remind every reader that some parties just won't play nice with stealth. By the same note, many will expect that it goes without saying that PAM is indeed at a disadvantage if you're getting a bunch of purely random loot, since something like a Flametongue is a big deal to pass up.

Basically... use things in their use cases. Evaluate the kind of table you're playing at and play to that table. https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png


Polearm Mastery is a pretty busted feat. Weaponizing your bonus actions is one of the best ways to increase your damage, and the other abilities it provides are also strong.

I wouldn't say it's busted. There are plenty of strong bonus actions in the game, and if you've got those, PAM becomes rather less attractive for the price of a feat. And there's plenty of builds that are at least as strong as PAM users.

[Dork_Forge]

Depending what Oath you take you might already have some uses for your bonus action. Vengeance, for example, has Vow of Enmity as a bonus action and gets access to Misty Step. Smite spells and Shield of Faith are also a source of bonus actions.

If you want to take a feat specifically, then Telekinetic could be a solid choice depending on your Cha modifier. Personally, though, I'd recommend two weapon fighting. You can grab the style through Fighting Initiate, it's compatible with a wide range of weapons, more if you choose Dual Wielder, and it's more opportunities to Smite/leverage a CD/Divine Favor etc.

[Pex]

No magic item exists without the DM's permission. A random loot table does not override the DM. If the DM is giving out magical long swords, daggers, and arrows like candy but never a magical halberd shall you meet, talk to him about it. If he still refuses you one then yes, get a new DM. It's not the DM's job to punish you for taking a feat. Yes, it is a punishment to deny you a magic weapon in a form you like when magic weapons of all other types flow freely. If the DM absolutely hates a feat with such a passion then ban it in session 0. Don't let the player take it then make him regret it for the rest of the campaign in misery.

This is not the same thing as demanding the DM must give you a specific magical halberd of specific abilities the player wants to his heart's content. A pole arm master paladin does not must always forever get a halberd holy avenger. The pole arm master fighter does not deserve a double bladed quarterstaff with sunblades at both ends to be like Darth Maul no matter how much a player begs. It does mean when the DM is ready to hand out magic weapons to the players the pole arm master PC gets a qualifying magic weapon of equal power to whatever other magic weapons the DM gives out.

[Segev]

It is worth noting that XGE provides rules for shopping for magic items, so if your random loot is not serving you well, you can talk to your DM about using downtime to hunt for that magic polearm you want. It may also be possible to take that cool sword and find a smith who can forge a longer handle onto it to make an effective and still-magical polearm. This obviously involves more than just tying a longsword to a ten foot pole, but a number of spears are basically swords on longer hilts.

[trtl]

I mentioned it when I was rating feats. But yeah, many people will talk about it under the assumption that it won't cause issues with your loot, because many GMs use tailored loot rather than true random loot.

That said, it's entirely fair for posters to say (for example) 'X is a great stealth ability' and not stop to remind every reader that some parties just won't play nice with stealth. By the same note, many will expect that it goes without saying that PAM is indeed at a disadvantage if you're getting a bunch of purely random loot, since something like a Flametongue is a big deal to pass up.

Basically... use things in their use cases. Evaluate the kind of table you're playing at and play to that table. https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png



That makes a lot of sense.


I'm actually looking at picking up a Double Bladed Scimitar, it gives me that bonus action to attack, but all it costs is gold (though admittedly a lot of it) so I can move on without regrets if I find some other magic weapon. Then, if I DO find a magical polearm that I'll be happy to use for the rest of the campaign, I can worry about grabbing PAM then. Damage is lower than PAM would be, but higher than what I'm currently doing.

[trtl]

No magic item exists without the DM's permission. A random loot table does not override the DM. If the DM is giving out magical long swords, daggers, and arrows like candy but never a magical halberd shall you meet, talk to him about it. If he still refuses you one then yes, get a new DM. It's not the DM's job to punish you for taking a feat. Yes, it is a punishment to deny you a magic weapon in a form you like when magic weapons of all other types flow freely. If the DM absolutely hates a feat with such a passion then ban it in session 0. Don't let the player take it then make him regret it for the rest of the campaign in misery.

This is not the same thing as demanding the DM must give you a specific magical halberd of specific abilities the player wants to his heart's content. A pole arm master paladin does not must always forever get a halberd holy avenger. The pole arm master fighter does not deserve a double bladed quarterstaff with sunblades at both ends to be like Darth Maul no matter how much a player begs. It does mean when the DM is ready to hand out magic weapons to the players the pole arm master PC gets a qualifying magic weapon of equal power to whatever other magic weapons the DM gives out.

I largely disagree with the attitude in this post and you are reading a bunch into my post that wasn't there. My DM doesn't hate PAM, my DM isn't targeting me. My DM just gives us items that aren't always exactly what you want.

But ultimately it's a moot point because I like the way my DM handles magical items so I won't be leaving the group.

[Theodoxus]

This scenario happened to me in the last game I played. I was a human paladin with Crusher, using a warhammer (one or two handed depending if I felt I needed the extra AC from a shield. It was a blast to play, until we got to 3rd level and the BBEG at the end of the arc had a custom magic longsword that easily surpassed my normal warhammer. I hemmed and hawed a lot over swapping out weapons, but I really liked the hammer... I had picked up a level of Devout Soul Sorcerer for Booming Blade and Bless at 2nd level, so I had been using the BB/Crusher combo for a while... But, the next arc saw us fighting creatures that had normal weapon resistance, so the sword ended up completely being necessary (the DM ruled that BB didn't provide a 'magical effect' on the base weapon damage, so I was dealing (1d8+4)/2, so the longsword was superior in that regard.)

As a DM, I provide an heirloom item to each character that grows in power as they do. It starts very minor but gets more powerful as they do. It can be anything they like. The current game I'm running, one player has a rapier, another a ring, and the last a cloak. The guy with the ring vacillated for a long time between the ring and armor; he ultimately decided on the ring as he wasn't sure (and I didn't provide an answer) if the armor would increase in protective value (starting with Hide and growing to Half-plate), or staying Hide forever.

[diplomancer]

One other thing to consider is that, unless you get both PAM and GWM, you don't need a magical halberd/glaive to make good use of PAM. A magical Staff or Spear will suffice, and be quite powerful. In my playing experience, you have a good chance of getting spears or staffs without asking your DM or specifically searching for it, less so for halberd and glaives.

[Damon_Tor]

No magic item exists without the DM's permission. A random loot table does not override the DM. If the DM is giving out magical long swords, daggers, and arrows like candy but never a magical halberd shall you meet, talk to him about it. If he still refuses you one then yes, get a new DM. It's not the DM's job to punish you for taking a feat. Yes, it is a punishment to deny you a magic weapon in a form you like when magic weapons of all other types flow freely. If the DM absolutely hates a feat with such a passion then ban it in session 0. Don't let the player take it then make him regret it for the rest of the campaign in misery.

This is not the same thing as demanding the DM must give you a specific magical halberd of specific abilities the player wants to his heart's content. A pole arm master paladin does not must always forever get a halberd holy avenger. The pole arm master fighter does not deserve a double bladed quarterstaff with sunblades at both ends to be like Darth Maul no matter how much a player begs. It does mean when the DM is ready to hand out magic weapons to the players the pole arm master PC gets a qualifying magic weapon of equal power to whatever other magic weapons the DM gives out.

Many DMs run adventures as-written, and WotC has populated it's dungeons with very few magic polearms. Other DMs are more concerned with authenticity: if there's no reason a magic halberd exists in a given place, why should I have it "drop" like MMO loot when the party kills an owlbear?

[stayhoided]

I don't notice anyone else talk about this when they talk about optimization..

I think that's because most players would just go "sweet a +1 longsword! Is it cool if we let it be a spear/staff/etc. instead since that's what my build is for?" and then the DM says yes. I think the random still applies there because there's a chance you don't get a +1 weapon at all.

Or at least that's how it's always worked for me across several DMs.

If they say no, buy a quarterstaff and tie the sword to the end of it like a make-shift spear :smallcool:

edit: but also this would be a very good session zero question to bring up. If they want to be strict about it or not alter things that drop, then just know that going in and it should be all cool either way!

[Pex]

I largely disagree with the attitude in this post and you are reading a bunch into my post that wasn't there. My DM doesn't hate PAM, my DM isn't targeting me. My DM just gives us items that aren't always exactly what you want.

But ultimately it's a moot point because I like the way my DM handles magical items so I won't be leaving the group.

That's your prerogative, but you asked the question as the thread title so I answered. We don't have to agree on it.


Many DMs run adventures as-written, and WotC has populated it's dungeons with very few magic polearms. Other DMs are more concerned with authenticity: if there's no reason a magic halberd exists in a given place, why should I have it "drop" like MMO loot when the party kills an owlbear?

The DM runs the game, not the loot table, not the printed words on paper of a module. A DM choosing not to change a longsword +1 written in the module to a halberd +1 is not the same thing as the DM is forbidden to do so by threat of arrest.

Apparently the obligatory statement of a paladin not deserving a holy avenger halberd just because he took a feat wasn't enough. Now I must account for every monster fought everywhere. No, a halberd +1 or halberd of warning or any magical halberd need not appear just because the owlbear was defeated. The DM can award the magical halberd in any way he sees fit as appropriate - a dragon treasure hoard, the king's reward for saving the princess, a treasure map quest, or whatever grandiose means the DM desires to present a magical weapon as an epic story of the ages. The point is whenever the DM is ready for the PCs to have magic weapons the PC who took pole arm master gets one he can use for the feat. He doesn't even need to be the first PC of the party to get a magic weapon, but he gets one.

The feat is what the player wants to use for his fun in playing the game. Part of the DM's job is to facilitate the fun. The DM can account for story and balance and all sorts of things the DM needs to do to run the game. Nothing is taken away from that.

[trtl]

You asked the question as the thread title so I answered. We don't have to agree on it.

I literally didn't, nowhere did I ask if the DM was doing anything wrong, or if I should threaten to leave the group, honestly not even sure how my post could have been interpreted in that light when I literally said it's the most fun I've ever had with magic items.

[da newt]

In AL play this isn't a big issue as at level 5 you can pick a +1 weapon of your choice, and PC can trade magic items of like rarity. There are plenty of magic staffs, spears, pole-arms out there.

Otherwise, this is a great session 0 discussion for you to have with your DM. If they are keen to help you with your desired PC build - great. If they are a strict 'I will NOT adjust the written adventure in any way' or 'random is random - I won't bend luck for you' then you know there is risk in your feat choice or any other build that depends on a thing that you might find ...

Your concern is valid - it can be an issue at some tables and not at all at other tables.

[Leon]

Its a concern anytime you specialize in a weapon, possibly more so with 5e due to the inherent lack of solid crafting rules to make your own suitable weapon.


If they say no, buy a quarterstaff and tie the sword to the end of it like a make-shift spear :smallcool:

In Darksun once we were rewarded with a Iron Longsword, no-one in the party used swords, no-one could afford to buy it from us for what it was worth so I turned it into the blade of my Glaive

[Frogreaver]

Polearm Mastery is a pretty busted feat. Weaponizing your bonus actions is one of the best ways to increase your damage, and the other abilities it provides are also strong.

However, My DM hands out Magic Items mostly randomly. Rather than giving us a couple magic items that conveniently are the perfect fit for your build, we find a lot of magic items, many of which are of dubious value, and it's up to us to make the most of it.

For the record, I love this, by far the most fun I've had with magic items. Additionally, the RP of switching weapons and load-outs as you find more loot is a lot more interesting than getting the same weapon, but more magical, every time you beat a BBEG.

However, I worry that if I take a PAM, then if I ever find, say a +1 longsword, I have to choose between the sword, and my feat. I don't notice anyone else talk about this when they talk about optimization. Is it because most DMs will just give you a magic polearm, or is PAM worth skipping other magical weapons for, or is it just "white room" optimizing?

Also, assuming I don't grab PAM, what are some other ways I can utilize my bonus action? (lvl 4 paladin).

What Paladin subclass did you pick? Also what fighting style? Might as well ask stats too?

[Psyren]

If you absolutely, positively, under any circumstances can't get a magic polearm and nonmagical resistance keeps being a problem, Paladins get Magic Weapon on their spell list, or you can dip into Forge Cleric or Artificer if you want one active all day. But I think it doesn't come up a lot in optimization discussions because the Venn diagram intersection of DMs who make heavy use of nonmagical resistance monsters and DMs who refuse to give their martials at least the main magic weapon they want for their build is vanishingly small, and the subset of that group who also don't care about their players having fun are what we typically refer to as "jerks."

[trtl]

To be clear, it's not that you'll never find a magical polearm, you just might find it later than some other magical item, or you might find one but it's slightly less exciting than something else you found.

[Pex]

I literally didn't, nowhere did I ask if the DM was doing anything wrong, or if I should threaten to leave the group, honestly not even sure how my post could have been interpreted in that light when I literally said it's the most fun I've ever had with magic items.

"Does anyone else worry about finding other items when they take PAM?"

I answered the question on how I worry about it.

[Frogreaver]

To be clear, it's not that you'll never find a magical polearm, you just might find it later than some other magical item, or you might find one but it's slightly less exciting than something else you found.

IMO it’s a concern best resolved by not taking the feat till you see what good magic weapons you find. If one is a PAM weapon the. Take the feat. Maybe level 8 or 12.

[sithlordnergal]

So, I can easily see how this could become an issue with certain feats. However, you don't actually need to worry about that with PAM. PAM is one of the few feats were magic items that work with it are very, very plentiful. You just need to expand what sort of weapons you're willing to use, and potentially multiclass into Sorcerer.

Because PAM works with Quarterstaves, and there a lot of magical Quarterstaves. From the Staff of Fire, to the Staff of Power. They all count as a magical Quarterstaff, and some of them even provide bonuses to attacks and damage. Only downside is that you need to attune to most of them, and they generally require Wizard, Sorcerer, or Warlock levels.

[Psyren]

To be clear, it's not that you'll never find a magical polearm, you just might find it later than some other magical item, or you might find one but it's slightly less exciting than something else you found.

Whether that's a problem or not depends entirely on how often nonmagical resistance comes up in your fights. If it's occasional or rare, then finding a magic polearm later on isn't an issue. If it's common or constant, then it becomes a question of at what point the randomness is starting to impact your fun playing the character. It sounds like you're not at that latter breakpoint and that's okay.

Also - as mentioned above, magic staffs are comparatively plentiful and work with PAM just fine.

[trtl]

IMO it’s a concern best resolved by not taking the feat till you see what good magic weapons you find. If one is a PAM weapon the. Take the feat. Maybe level 8 or 12.

Yep, this is what I'm leaning towards more and more. Thanks!

[kazaryu]

No magic item exists without the DM's permission. A random loot table does not override the DM. If the DM is giving out magical long swords, daggers, and arrows like candy but never a magical halberd shall you meet, talk to him about it. If he still refuses you one then yes, get a new DM. It's not the DM's job to punish you for taking a feat. Yes, it is a punishment to deny you a magic weapon in a form you like when magic weapons of all other types flow freely. If the DM absolutely hates a feat with such a passion then ban it in session 0. Don't let the player take it then make him regret it for the rest of the campaign in misery.

This is not the same thing as demanding the DM must give you a specific magical halberd of specific abilities the player wants to his heart's content. A pole arm master paladin does not must always forever get a halberd holy avenger. The pole arm master fighter does not deserve a double bladed quarterstaff with sunblades at both ends to be like Darth Maul no matter how much a player begs. It does mean when the DM is ready to hand out magic weapons to the players the pole arm master PC gets a qualifying magic weapon of equal power to whatever other magic weapons the DM gives out.

to be fair, OP didn't describe a DM that gave magical longswords out like candy...he described a DM that gave out random loot. as such, much like in a rogue like games, you can't go in counting on getting specific items for your game, you need to tailor your playstyle to the things that show up. well depending on the rogue like i suppose.

[CTurbo]

In my personal experience, any of the DMs I've played with will always make sure that a player will get a magic weapon they "need" or are looking for. If a player in any of my groups pays a feat tax for PAM, they WILL eventually get a magic Glaive/Halberd. It may not be immediately, and there will likely be other magic weapon loots that don't fit the PAM feat, but it will come.

That being said, if I played with a DM that did NOT pay any attention to what their players were looking for, I would at the very least talk to them. I can't imagine not being able to find a magic polearm.

I think any good DM has to cater to their players needs to an extent. I'm not saying give them everything they want and make everything easy for them, but I think it would be a jerk move to refuse a player the magic item they're looking for. If I'm looking for a very specific kind of magic item, some of my DMs will make me do a small side quest to get it. It's always something. Or sometimes I may have to trade two +1 unwanted items for the +1 item I DO want.

I guess overall it wouldn't be a concern for me. If I wanted to play a PAM character, I'd take PAM and roll with it. If you end up getting a +1 longsword first, that's not the end of the world.

[Cheesegear]

Yes. That's generally why my players don't take weapon-specific Feats at Levels 1 or 4.

However, by late Tier 2, players should be able to straight up just start buying the magic items they want; So my players will often start taking weapon-Feats by Level 8.

[Psyren]

to be fair, OP didn't describe a DM that gave magical longswords out like candy...he described a DM that gave out random loot. as such, much like in a rogue like games, you can't go in counting on getting specific items for your game, you need to tailor your playstyle to the things that show up. well depending on the rogue like i suppose.

If there was a problem from this (which it doesn't sound like there is) - the source wouldn't actually be the loot, it would be the encounters. If you're not running into enemies that are resistant or immune to nonmagical damage a lot, then this would barely be worth a conversation. If the DM is is intentionally bombarding the party with such foes, that would warrant a conversation about the fairness of random loot. And if the encounters themselves are random too, chances are the paladin will be fine for the first two tiers at least.

[Witty Username]

I don't notice anyone else talk about this when they talk about optimization.

It is talked about some, but most optimization guides don't like discussing magic items as it is difficult to predict magic item availability. Like say having to choose between a + 1 longsword and a halberd, assumes you find a +1 longsword.

Treantmonk brings it up briefly in his Kensei video, as to why he doesn't factor sharpen the blade into his dpr reckoning, as to do so would assume no magic items, rather than maybe magic items but not sure what they are.

I personally find this a small problem, I don't mind having weapon choice being meaningful (a polearm I am good with, versus a magic sword I need when ghosts show up) but if it becomes an issue bonus action stuff is about spells like Hunter's mark , some of the feat options in Tasha's, smite spells, etc. Options like rogue dips are also on the table if your not wanting the Polearm for non mechanical reasons.

[Dork_Forge]

Treantmonk brings it up briefly in his Kensei video, as to why he doesn't factor sharpen the blade into his dpr reckoning, as to do so would assume no magic items, rather than maybe magic items but not sure what they are.


This sells Sharpen the Blade short though, you might have a +1 sword you're happy with for most fights, but for boss fights you can create your own +3 sword, or you can give something like a flametongue or a frostbrand a +x on top of the bonus damage.

[Psyren]

Treantmonk brings it up briefly in his Kensei video, as to why he doesn't factor sharpen the blade into his dpr reckoning, as to do so would assume no magic items, rather than maybe magic items but not sure what they are.

Treantmonk made the same error in that video you just did - Sharpen The Blade does actually work on magic weapons, so long as they don't grant a bonus to attack and damage. So for example, you can combine StB with a Moontouched Sword (common) or a Longbow of Warning (uncommon) just fine. Even something more powerful with just a damage bonus, like a Vicious Longbow or an Oathbow - both rarer, but still core - will work with it.


if it becomes an issue bonus action stuff is about spells like Hunter's mark , some of the feat options in Tasha's, smite spells, etc. Options like rogue dips are also on the table if your not wanting the Polearm for non mechanical reasons.

Yeah even if a fight rolls around where you can't use PAM, there are plenty of other ways to use your bonus action, such as racials, spells, feats, and multiclass features.

[LudicSavant]

Treantmonk brings it up briefly in his Kensei video, as to why he doesn't factor sharpen the blade into his dpr reckoning, as to do so would assume no magic items Treantmonk is mistaken on this one. Not only does Sharpen the Blade work with some magic items, it works with more magic items than, say, the average GWM/PAM or Hand Crossbow Expert build does (and he doesn't exclude those from his DPR reckoning).

[Aimeryan]

With common weapon types like this, it would be absurd to on-the-fly rule that magic polearms, staffs, and spears don't exist - but magic swords do. If the DM wants that to be the case, then that is something that very much needs stated at session zero.

It isn't even an issue of random or module loot; it takes the DM to make the conscious choice that its impossible to trade these in for magic weapon types the player wants - which again, is basically ruling that those weapon types do not exist and this should be a session zero statement. Certainly, make it non-trivial to trade them - head to the nearest big city, go to a magic guild, whatever, but it shouldn't be overly onerous and definitely not impossible.

[stoutstien]

As others have pointed out magical weapons are only really relevant if you're dealing with NPCs that have immunity to non-magical weapon damage. That isn't a common feature all n all unless it's a major common theme in a given campaign and even then it's rarely immunity sub CR 15. Then it's usually still accessible just with some form of devil's bargain style approach.

However, unless your DM is extremely good at removing personal bias and subjective adjustments to the world things like PaM are mostly theme picks. There is always more mooks with maces.

[da newt]

I've got to say I lean pretty hard toward Amen and Pex on this one. If the DM is creating their own content / adventure and one of their Players wants to PAM or XBE or Archer and they decide that magic swords are available but magic glaives, Xbows and bows aren't - what sort of a DM / person does that?

Sure I can understand if you are running a published adventure strictly as written (no changing encounters for balance or ANY alterations) and that you let everyone know during session zero that you'll get what is printed no exceptions, no magic stores, no crafting, etc ... but otherwise - come on? Why? Or maybe if the central theme to this campaign is really low magic world, but still this ought to be well established and agreed upon in a session 0.

I like to build side quests to find / appropriate special items. Player X really wants to seek out a Displacer Cloak or a Frost Band Polearm - I can build a nice side quest for the party to go off and track one of those down ... Yeah there will be a cost / risk, and it may be gated by an appropriately powerful foe, but it's possible.

BTW - I wish the DMG showed a bit more love to the ranged and non-sword magic weapons. It's a bit thin and boring for the other weapons.

[Witty Username]

This sells Sharpen the Blade short though, you might have a +1 sword you're happy with for most fights, but for boss fights you can create your own +3 sword, or you can give something like a flametongue or a frostbrand a +x on top of the bonus damage.

At least for the second part, he was analyzing a ranged build that was recommended him so flametounge and frostbrand wouldn't be in play.

For the first, while that is a true use case, the issue is it renders builds incompreble in terms of damage, comparing fighter dpr with monk+shapen the blade dpr assumes the fighter has no magic weapons.

But this is more the stated reasons I have seen for optimizing stuff not going over magic weapons, not really if the reasoning is correct.

[diplomancer]

At least for the second part, he was analyzing a ranged build that was recommended him so flametounge and frostbrand wouldn't be in play.

For the first, while that is a true use case, the issue is it renders builds incompreble in terms of damage, comparing fighter dpr with monk+shapen the blade dpr assumes the fighter has no magic weapons.

But this is more the stated reasons I have seen for optimizing stuff not going over magic weapons, not really if the reasoning is correct.

I mean, if that's an issue, just give the Kensei monk a magic weapon that works with Sharpen the Blade of equivalent rarity and compare the DPR. It's not perfect, but it's definitely better than to dismiss the feature completely.

[Pex]

IMO it’s a concern best resolved by not taking the feat till you see what good magic weapons you find. If one is a PAM weapon the. Take the feat. Maybe level 8 or 12.

That's a poor option for someone who really wants to enjoy the playstyle to deny himself the playstyle for half or more of the game depending on when the campaign ends. If it's something you want to play you take it at level 1 as a Variant Human or level 4. Ideally you tell the DM in Session 0 you want to play this. If he hates it with a passion to never ever give a qualifying magic weapon he'll let you know and you play something else. A more reasonable (my opinion) DM nods his head in acknowledgement and moves on. When he's ready to give out a magic weapon he'll have one in mind for you.

It is a different matter if the player doesn't have a major concern on fighting style. It's possible a player was a long sword and shield fighter for 7 levels taking Defense as a fighting style to tank on AC. Suddenly a cool magical halberd comes into play, so he switches to that and at 8th level takes pole arm master. That's cool too.

[Frogreaver]

That's a poor option for someone who really wants to enjoy the playstyle to deny himself the playstyle for half or more of the game depending on when the campaign ends. If it's something you want to play you take it at level 1 as a Variant Human or level 4. Ideally you tell the DM in Session 0 you want to play this. If he hates it with a passion to never ever give a qualifying magic weapon he'll let you know and you play something else. A more reasonable (my opinion) DM nods his head in acknowledgement and moves on. When he's ready to give out a magic weapon he'll have one in mind for you.

It is a different matter if the player doesn't have a major concern on fighting style. It's possible a player was a long sword and shield fighter for 7 levels taking Defense as a fighting style to tank on AC. Suddenly a cool magical halberd comes into play, so he switches to that and at 8th level takes pole arm master. That's cool too.

I don’t agree. A reasonable person understands that there are various types of campaigns and not everything will align such that what they want to play will be the best in each one. If he really wants to play PAM there’s nothing stopping him, it may just not be the defacto best choice in this campaign but it’s still a solid choice. But from an optimization perspective for this campaign style I think it’s best to lock if feats later after you have a good idea on the weapons you have.

TLDR, nothing prevents PAM in this campaign, nor from it being good. it’s just no longer the obvious best choice for his game.

[stoutstien]

That's a poor option for someone who really wants to enjoy the playstyle to deny himself the playstyle for half or more of the game depending on when the campaign ends. If it's something you want to play you take it at level 1 as a Variant Human or level 4. Ideally you tell the DM in Session 0 you want to play this. If he hates it with a passion to never ever give a qualifying magic weapon he'll let you know and you play something else. A more reasonable (my opinion) DM nods his head in acknowledgement and moves on. When he's ready to give out a magic weapon he'll have one in mind for you.

It is a different matter if the player doesn't have a major concern on fighting style. It's possible a player was a long sword and shield fighter for 7 levels taking Defense as a fighting style to tank on AC. Suddenly a cool magical halberd comes into play, so he switches to that and at 8th level takes pole arm master. That's cool too.
PaM isn't really a playstyle past "more damage" because action economy. Nothing about the feat actually supports a troupe besides the reaction attack and that's a fairly weak angle

magic weapons only are even impactful in corner cases where normal weapon damage isn't effective. ~ 30 total NPCs with over 3/4 are maybe once a campaign 20+ CR type NPCs that are immune to non magical weapon attacks. Silvering a normal weapon covers more ground than magical weapons do

[stayhoided]

I think it depends on what "playstyle" means but certainly for RP it can be meaningful to be able to have your weapon type early on.

Also the extra AoO can definitely help your group if you want to be defensive in situations and hold doorways and other choke points with the dodge action, but still be able to get in some hits, as well as combining it with Sentinel making it effective at protecting others. You can play it as just "more damage" or you can play it as more opportunities to control since the DM has to take into account your extra range.

Anyways, I think the easiest thing is you should probably just talk to your DM and ask him and then make your decision from there. Another option, since you're a paladin, would be to go Devotion and use the CD ability to allow your weapon to be considered magical for hitting things if you don't get a magic spear drop.

[sithlordnergal]

Anyways, I think the easiest thing is you should probably just talk to your DM and ask him and then make your decision from there. Another option, since you're a paladin, would be to go Devotion and use the CD ability to allow your weapon to be considered magical for hitting things if you don't get a magic spear drop.

Yeah, Paladins do get the Magic Weapon spell too. So that will work to make your weapons magical too. Also, remember that PAM works with the Quarterstaff, magical staffs can be used as a Magical Quarterstaff, and there are a LOT of magical staffs.

[JonBeowulf]

I can't get my head around why it's even a concern. I'd be more concerned about stacking another BA option though. (I've never taken PAM with any my pally's and I've never had an issue finding something useful to use my BA for).

If you want PAM, go for it. If you find a magic sword later... cool, you have a solid Plan B for when the non-magical pole arm isn't working out.

[da newt]

It's just like deciding to go DEX and then all the magical weapon loot is ST based and you are SOL (not really, but enough to be bummed about it). Or going Ranged and there are no magic ranged weapons. Or going w/ a Druid and all the magical stuff (wands, scrolls, etc) are for Wizards. Or going Monk and ... nope that's it - monks get nothing.

[Willie the Duck]

Polearm Mastery is a pretty busted feat. Weaponizing your bonus actions is one of the best ways to increase your damage, and the other abilities it provides are also strong.

However, My DM hands out Magic Items mostly randomly. Rather than giving us a couple magic items that conveniently are the perfect fit for your build, we find a lot of magic items, many of which are of dubious value, and it's up to us to make the most of it.

For the record, I love this, by far the most fun I've had with magic items. Additionally, the RP of switching weapons and load-outs as you find more loot is a lot more interesting than getting the same weapon, but more magical, every time you beat a BBEG.

However, I worry that if I take a PAM, then if I ever find, say a +1 longsword, I have to choose between the sword, and my feat. I don't notice anyone else talk about this when they talk about optimization. Is it because most DMs will just give you a magic polearm, or is PAM worth skipping other magical weapons for, or is it just "white room" optimizing?

Also, assuming I don't grab PAM, what are some other ways I can utilize my bonus action? (lvl 4 paladin).

I would say that PAM isn't busted, so much as it (along with GWM, SS, and XBE) is simply some of the most-obvious avenues towards power. It synergizes very well with paladins because Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite both play very well with extra attacks per round. This is reasonable, since a paladin has a lot of other uses for their ASIs and more than a few other uses for their bonus actions*. When you factor in the opportunity cost for ASIs, for actions, and for alternate builds (to get this up and running you aren't doing paly/hexbladelock/sorcadin shenanigans, or a warcaster/resilient:con concentration-spell paladin, or Inspiring Leader team-booster, or heck playing a fighter who eventually gets 4 attacks/round with any weapon), the magic-item issue is just one part of many reasons why this choice is merely one of many good options. It is still top-tier among melee martial strategies (as is playing a paladin**), but IMO certainly not busted.
*and all front-liners may have gotten reaction-attacks anyways, depending on their enemy's desire to rush past them to the squishy characters
**particularly given what people say about their experience related to norms for encounters per long rest

As to why people don't mention the magic item frequency part in discussion, well, firstly I think they do, fairly regularly. Beyond that, I think people recognize it as something of which everyone is aware, and also aware that the community as a whole doesn't have one single answer as to how it plays out in general*. So at best it might be brought up in build-advice/optimization posts as a disclaimer like '*build advice contingent on likelihood of getting supporting equipment'.
*personally I've been in at least 4 or 5 knock-down, drag-out thread discussions here or on reddit on the matter, each of which came to a different conclusion on how prevalent each of random/placed/module-adherent/party-tailored/etc. magic item distribution is.

Personally, my groups tend to do thus: for the most part, we use random charts for weapon type of magic item loot, and generally both DMs and players prefer that. We all started in the TSR-era, where the random chart was at least presented as normal*. Beyond that, we generally are looking for ways to make 5e more challenging (other than just throwing more opposition at the party), and to make the successes feel more weighty. If the opportunity cost for a top-notch character strategy is being a +1 behind in weapon bonus or maybe having to switch to a backup +1 flail when the ghosts come out to play or having to use a spell in certain situations, in general we find that acceptable.
*Mind you, TSR A/D&D also made bows, longswords, and lances be the correct answers for which weapons to focus on, so we want a chart significantly more varied than that.

That said, we also recognize the situation of being screwed over by the RNG (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RandomNumberGod). Just like there can be that one fight where all the attacks against Joe are hits or all the hits against Jane are crits or Tim gets hold-person-locked for the whole fight (and that strains how much fun 'let the dice fall where they may' actually is), you can get X levels into a campaign and not one magic Y shows up (and that can be no fun, either). For that situation, we have a solution that also functions as an adventure hook: the item quest. Random loot is random, but that doesn't mean you can't deliberately seek out a specific item. Perhaps a History check will inform you that there are tales of Colwyn the Glaive-wielder who disappeared in the depths of the Black Fortress, and so far as anyone knows the glaive is still there, waiting to be found...


I largely disagree with the attitude in this post and you are reading a bunch into my post that wasn't there. My DM doesn't hate PAM, my DM isn't targeting me. My DM just gives us items that aren't always exactly what you want.
But ultimately it's a moot point because I like the way my DM handles magical items so I won't be leaving the group.

I literally didn't, nowhere did I ask if the DM was doing anything wrong, or if I should threaten to leave the group, honestly not even sure how my post could have been interpreted in that light when I literally said it's the most fun I've ever had with magic items.
It's easiest to be (hopefully diplomatically) blunt about this -- the person your responding to has a personal history with so-called 'tyrant DMs' that made their early gaming rather hellish and have made it a mission to warn against the dangers of DMs or rules structures not providing the players or characters game aspects like information, options, or build-necessary campaign events. It is someone's personal quest based on past experience and unrelated to your relationship to your DM. Within the context of being overly ready to see this condition in the situations of others (and default advice that you should vote with your feet), their points are generally reasonable pursuant from that starting point.

[Pex]

A lack of a reward is not a punishment.

It is when everyone else is getting it, but you're left out.


I don’t agree. A reasonable person understands that there are various types of campaigns and not everything will align such that what they want to play will be the best in each one. If he really wants to play PAM there’s nothing stopping him, it may just not be the defacto best choice in this campaign but it’s still a solid choice. But from an optimization perspective for this campaign style I think it’s best to lock if feats later after you have a good idea on the weapons you have.

TLDR, nothing prevents PAM in this campaign, nor from it being good. it’s just no longer the obvious best choice for his game.


PaM isn't really a playstyle past "more damage" because action economy. Nothing about the feat actually supports a troupe besides the reaction attack and that's a fairly weak angle

magic weapons only are even impactful in corner cases where normal weapon damage isn't effective. ~ 30 total NPCs with over 3/4 are maybe once a campaign 20+ CR type NPCs that are immune to non magical weapon attacks. Silvering a normal weapon covers more ground than magical weapons do

It's possible the first magic weapons of the campaign aren't showing up until level 7 or 8 anyway, so it really doesn't matter. The player enjoys his fighting style, and maybe once or twice a Magic Weapon spell is needed, which is fine. It's only a problem when it's almost every combat. By the time the DM is ready to have magic weapons be given to the party whether the PC takes pole arm master at level 1, 4, or 8 doesn't matter at this point. I never said the PC should have his magic halberd at level 1. He gets it when the DM is ready for magic weapons in the game. There's no reason other than being a donkey cavity for a DM to refuse a magic weapon of a type a PC would like to use with the feat he wants, all published modules can jump in the lake for all I care about words on paper. The DM controls the campaign, not the module.

[stoutstien]

It is when everyone else is getting it, but you're left out.





It's possible the first magic weapons of the campaign aren't showing up until level 7 or 8 anyway, so it really doesn't matter. The player enjoys his fighting style, and maybe once or twice a Magic Weapon spell is needed, which is fine. It's only a problem when it's almost every combat. By the time the DM is ready to have magic weapons be given to the party whether the PC takes pole arm master at level 1, 4, or 8 doesn't matter at this point. I never said the PC should have his magic halberd at level 1. He gets it when the DM is ready for magic weapons in the game. There's no reason other than being a donkey cavity for a DM to refuse a magic weapon of a type a PC would like to use with the feat he wants, all published modules can jump in the lake for all I care about words on paper. The DM controls the campaign, not the module.

With that mentality magical weapons are kinda pointless no? Just extra numbers and stuff for the sake of it. Which I'm not internally apposed to if implemented with some forethought.

The OP table rolls for stuff. It's a fairly popular form of keeping both side of the screen from allowing ones personal feelings into a portion of the game that isn't set up for an overly critical application as those items weren't given much time and consideration how they interact with other mechanics. what those generation tables look like is an unknown factor. For all we know there are more magical spears/polearms and such then swords because they have an additional roll for type for all weapons and armor.

It's not punishment if everyone agrees to it past one doing it to one's self by not playing to the table.

[Cheesegear]

Locked away, in the vampire's hoard you find a...Sun Blade. The only weapon that could really harm him. The vampire made sure to keep it safe, but now it's yours! Uhh...Fighter. I think you're the strongest character for a Longsword.
LAME!!! I have Polearm Master. I want a magical Pike!
But...Sun Blade...It's a...Sun Blade...That's good, isn't it?
Yes. But not good enough. Poot.

I'm sure at some tables, that might happen. Not my table. I can assure you that if someone at my table is complaining about a Sun Blade as a reward, they wouldn't even get yelled at by me. They'd be yelled at by the other players.

[JNAProductions]

Locked away, in the vampire's hoard you find a...Sun Blade. The only weapon that could really harm him. The vampire made sure to keep it safe, but now it's yours! Uhh...Fighter. I think you're the strongest character for a Longsword.
LAME!!! I have Polearm Master. I want a magical Pike!
But...Sun Blade...It's a...Sun Blade...That's good, isn't it?
Yes. But not good enough. Poot.

I'm sure at some tables, that might happen. Not my table. I can assure you that if someone at my table is complaining about a Sun Blade as a reward, they wouldn't even get yelled at by me. They'd be yelled at by the other players.

“Nah, I’ve got my trusty Troll Gutter (Moon-Touched Glaive). It’s a good sword, but it’s not for me. Why don’t you use it instead? Or we could trade it to the Consortium to gain some favors.”

[da newt]

Yeah - I mean talk about a magic item that is PERFECTLY designed to be mounted on a spear's shaft for extra awesome sauce - sun blade glaive for the win!!!

[Witty Username]

Treantmonk is mistaken on this one. Not only does Sharpen the Blade work with some magic items, it works with more magic items than, say, the average GWM/PAM or Hand Crossbow Expert build does (and he doesn't exclude those from his DPR reckoning).

My take on that is it is worth considering the magic items the character would like to use.

A hand crossbow user has non-crossbow magic weapons, which don't work, or any magic crossbow, which will.

A Kensei archer, that uses a longbow, could find a magic longbow, the exact weapon for their build and it does not work with sharpen the blade, despite being the kind of weapon they want to use, if they find a magic kensei weapon, it usually doesn't work (longsword?), if you find a magic non-kensei weapon, it doesn't work.

finding a magic weapon that fits your build is normally a thing that increases dpr, rather than turning off your features. A kensei monk finding a magic kensei weapon, is fully capable on missing on both fronts.

Then again, I am a playgroup that buying magic items is a regular thing (or creation, one of our games has an active artificer, and so he likes trying to get magic items together in downtime).

Either way, from how people talk most games are over by that point anyway, so its not a big deal as far as I can tell.


Locked away, in the vampire's hoard you find a...Sun Blade. The only weapon that could really harm him. The vampire made sure to keep it safe, but now it's yours! Uhh...Fighter. I think you're the strongest character for a Longsword.
LAME!!! I have Polearm Master. I want a magical Pike!
But...Sun Blade...It's a...Sun Blade...That's good, isn't it?
Yes. But not good enough. Poot.

I'm sure at some tables, that might happen. Not my table. I can assure you that if someone at my table is complaining about a Sun Blade as a reward, they wouldn't even get yelled at by me. They'd be yelled at by the other players.
I have seen a few times a +2 weapon being out performed by a non-magic specialty weapon (some of them from 3.5), usually the solution is, they give it to someone else, and their happy, or they pocket it in case its plot relevant (not really a thing anymore as ghost touch weapons didn't survive the jump).

[Pex]

Locked away, in the vampire's hoard you find a...Sun Blade. The only weapon that could really harm him. The vampire made sure to keep it safe, but now it's yours! Uhh...Fighter. I think you're the strongest character for a Longsword.
LAME!!! I have Polearm Master. I want a magical Pike!
But...Sun Blade...It's a...Sun Blade...That's good, isn't it?
Yes. But not good enough. Poot.

I'm sure at some tables, that might happen. Not my table. I can assure you that if someone at my table is complaining about a Sun Blade as a reward, they wouldn't even get yelled at by me. They'd be yelled at by the other players.

Pathfinder 1E game, playing a module. We're in the Dreamlands. Anything acquired there is usable there but does not come back with us to the real world. Campaign Plot we do have to return to the Dreamlands from time to time. In the Dreamlands we came upon a Vorpal Blade and the Rod of Lordly Might. No one wanted them because they did not fit their fighting style. No one complained, just didn't want them. We didn't get rid of them, but they went to the PCs who can have niche use of them. The bard did have one good turn with the Vorpal Blade, but it's not his first choice of doing stuff in combat.

People here might say the fighter is being dumb because he's happy with his magical glaive for which he built his character to use and is effective with it, but the fighter would rather have Enlarge Person cast upon him and go to town. He bought a wand of it for my arcanist to use upon him. Players have their preferences. That does not mean the DM must cater to their every whim, but it also does not mean the DM must never.

No, I don't expect the Sunblade to be a Halberd Sunblade because a PC took Polearm Master. If for some reason that's the only PC in the party who can wield it he can still do so when it's most appropriate such as against undead and use his halberd for everything else. Otherwise give it to the PC who can use it, and Polearm Master PC continues with his halberd and be happy. I still call the DM foul if from now on all enemies require a magic weapon because a Sunblade is in the game and refuses to provide a magical polearm of some sort even if it's not as powerful as a Sunblade. I do not give a Hoover if there are no magical polearms in the module being played. The DM runs the game, not the module. The DM can make up a magical halberd and put it somewhere.

[LudicSavant]

A hand crossbow user has non-crossbow magic weapons, which don't work, or any magic crossbow, which will.

A Kensei archer, that uses a longbow, could find a magic longbow, the exact weapon for their build and it does not work with sharpen the blade

The exact weapon for a kensei archer's build isn't a longbow, it's any ranged weapon that works with Sharpen the Blade. And there are actually more such weapons than there are magic hand crossbows.

[Pex]

No, it isn't. That's just misusing the word. Unless the DM is intentionally removing/changing weapons that would otherwise be found to teach you some kind of lesson.

A DM intentionally changing their magic item generation method so folks won't choose certain builds would be punishment.

One sticking to her established method and a player choosing a build less likely to find a weapon under that method is natural consequences for a decision made.



The DM runs the game, not a random loot table. Even the DMG random magic item tables has Weapon +1, Weapon of Warning, Weapon +2, etc. in addition to specific named non-pole arm magic weapons. If the DM can't even be bothered to make a Weapon +1 a Halberd +1 for the Pole Arm Master PC to use then the DM {Scrubbed} not worthy of the chair.

Random loot tables can take a hike for all I care about them. Use them fine, but no magic item exists without the DM's permission. The DM needs to put on his big boy pants once in awhile and choose for himself what magic items to put in the game, weapon or not, when randomness is not doing the job. Even when the DM is specifically rewarding PCs with a magic item via the Patron who hired them for a job well done you give each PC something he can use. You do not give the Sorcerer who stays in the back casting spells a Dagger +1.

[Cheesegear]

You do not give the Sorcerer who stays in the back casting spells a Dagger +1.

Not on purpose.
But if the random loot rolls up a Dagger +1, and no-one in the party uses Daggers, and the only person who will realistically ever use it is the Sorcerer? ...Then it's Dagger +1 time for the Sorcerer.

...The Sorcerer then goes to town and sells the Dagger for roughly 400gp, and picks up a 50gp Diamond in trade so he can throw around Chromatic Orbs, and then another 300gp diamond for a 1UP later on, pockets the remaining 50gp for something later.

Nobody is ever "stuck" with a magic item - especially bad and/or non-useful ones.

If the random loot roll gives you something you can use...Great. Amazing. Fate and luck conspired and you got what you wanted.
If the random loot roll doesn't give you what you want...That sucks. But hey, a magic item you don't want, still represents ****-tons of gold, with which you can get what you actually want if you try even a little bit. Instead of just getting the magic item, you may just have to earn it.

[trtl]

I still call the DM foul if from now on all enemies require a magic weapon

It's almost like non-magical weapon resistance is a terrible mechanic that doesn't add anything to the game.

Though that's a discussion for another time.

[Aimeryan]

No, I don't expect the Sunblade to be a Halberd Sunblade because a PC took Polearm Master. If for some reason that's the only PC in the party who can wield it he can still do so when it's most appropriate such as against undead and use his halberd for everything else. Otherwise give it to the PC who can use it, and Polearm Master PC continues with his halberd and be happy. I still call the DM foul if from now on all enemies require a magic weapon because a Sunblade is in the game and refuses to provide a magical polearm of some sort even if it's not as powerful as a Sunblade. I do not give a Hoover if there are no magical polearms in the module being played. The DM runs the game, not the module. The DM can make up a magical halberd and put it somewhere.

Indeed. It makes sense that the player would be able to take that magic sword and trade it for an equivalent (+middle-man-fee) magic polearm. Why is this universe only creating magic swords, and why wasn't that mentioned at session 0? If uncommon or rare magic weapons are actually legendary rarity in universe, this needs to be a session 0 disclosure.

Alternatively, they should be able to take it to a magic crafter and have it reshaped. Alternatively, they should be able to take it to a merchant, sell it, then use those funds to craft or have crafted a different weapon.

It really just comes down to that no, I would never worry about this because it has either already stated that magic weapon types are going to be restricted or I'm going to be able to, with a little sidejaunt, trade one magic weapon in for one more appropriate - whether literally or figuratively.

[Theodoxus]

Locked away, in the vampire's hoard you find a...Sun Blade. The only weapon that could really harm him. The vampire made sure to keep it safe, but now it's yours! Uhh...Fighter. I think you're the strongest character for a Longsword.
LAME!!! I have Polearm Master. I want a magical Pike!
But...Sun Blade...It's a...Sun Blade...That's good, isn't it?
Yes. But not good enough. Poot.

I'm sure at some tables, that might happen. Not my table. I can assure you that if someone at my table is complaining about a Sun Blade as a reward, they wouldn't even get yelled at by me. They'd be yelled at by the other players.

That's exactly what happened in the one time I played Out of the Abyss. I was playing a snow elf cleric of Lathander. The rest of the party were a pair of drow brothers (chainlock and gloomstalker), another drow wizard and a rogue of some flavor that had darkvision. We found a sunblade, and no one wanted it, but since I was an elf, I had proficiency to use it, so I did. The rest of the party outside of the rogue hated when I used it, since it gave them disad unless they were outside the light and not targeting through it. I found it quite useful, as a few fights against enemy drow were made a lot easier from their disad to hit me with ranged attacks.

Of course, basically being the symbol of my god just bolstered my characters faith after being lost in the darkness for so long. It was a pretty fun campaign, until we pissed off too many of the Abyssal denizens and a couple demon lords teamed up on us... I don't know if that was in the module or if the DM was tired and just imploded the game...

[Willie the Duck]

Indeed. It makes sense that the player would be able to take that magic sword and trade it for an equivalent (+middle-man-fee) magic polearm.
Definitely, within the established parameters of frequency of magic item availability and trade possibilities, there should be no reason why trading one weapon for another (assuming associated legwork and fees). It would be interesting to wonder if, in-universe, all the NPCs are also tempted to take PAM and as such there is a market-demand for magic halberds/glaives/staves/spears and you pay a much higher finder fee for trading that magic sword (or, better yet, trident) for a magic halberd than the other way around.


Why is this universe only creating magic swords, and why wasn't that mentioned at session 0? If uncommon or rare magic weapons are actually legendary rarity in universe, this needs to be a session 0 disclosure.
I just want to note that we started (in this sub-thread response chain) with a scenario where the PCs have reached the level where they start getting magic items, and have run into a sunsword, but not (so far) a magic polearm, and drifted into one where there are no magic polearms to be found. I find it grating when people on the internet use the word 'strawman' as though it were a rhetorical magic-win-button; but I will say that this new hypothesized scenario is super-specific and I'm not sure points made in regards to it are significantly extrapolatable to the gaming experiences most people will run into. Let's be clear, if a DM does create a universe where specific build-choices or weapon preference options are inherently inferior (due to magic items for them being unavailable or rarer than a random distribution would indicate) and doesn't disclose that/inform the players going in, that is a violation of the expectation of being given the necessary information to make reasonable decisions; I just think it's an extreme outlier scenario.


Alternatively, they should be able to take it to a magic crafter and have it reshaped. Alternatively, they should be able to take it to a merchant, sell it, then use those funds to craft or have crafted a different weapon.

It really just comes down to that no, I would never worry about this because it has either already stated that magic weapon types are going to be restricted or I'm going to be able to, with a little sidejaunt, trade one magic weapon in for one more appropriate - whether literally or figuratively.
I think that's where most campaigns land: getting (in the end) what you want, instead of luck of the draw, is doable -- it just may take more time, effort, legwork, or (hopefully) adventure opportunities. A reasonable cost (or benefit, depending on how you feel about adventure hooks) for specializing.

[tchntm43]

There seem to be some pretty extreme views in this thread. I would start by suggesting that neither players nor the DM should behave in ways that escalate conflict between them at the table:
1. The player should not assume that the DM is out to get them or punishing them if they don't find the magic item they are hoping to find
2. The DM should not assume that the player is being demanding/rude in wanting a specific magic item

The following two views are unreasonable:
1. I will quit the game if the DM doesn't give me the magic item I want
2. I will refuse to give the player a specific magic item that isn't overpowered that would really help his character

Thankfully, there is a happy medium between these points of view!

If the player really wants a specific magic item that would be helpful but not overpowered, they should discuss this with the group (not just the DM!). Express an interest in this, and maybe obtaining the item becomes the focus of a side-adventure. Maybe it's as simple as negotiating with NPCs to find someone in town who has one, or maybe it involves learning that one is known to be kept in a tomb or other dungeon somewhere. Most DMs are much more receptive to this than just asking them to provide you with the item.

[diplomancer]

It's almost like non-magical weapon resistance is a terrible mechanic that doesn't add anything to the game.

Though that's a discussion for another time.

I disagree. It's great for worldbuilding, and explains why some creatures are so fearful to commoners.

[stoutstien]

I disagree. It's great for worldbuilding, and explains why some creatures are so fearful to commoners.
Yea like dragons!...wait.

[Psyren]

It's almost like non-magical weapon resistance is a terrible mechanic that doesn't add anything to the game.

Though that's a discussion for another time.

Yeah you could probably replace it with more HP or some kind of fast-healing mechanic, and largely maintain the fiction of the respective monsters.

[Pex]

It's almost like non-magical weapon resistance is a terrible mechanic that doesn't add anything to the game.

Though that's a discussion for another time.

Irrelevant. The DM already decided and approved the PCs having magic weapons that allow overcoming non-magical weapon resistance. It's a question of what form they take, and it's the donkey cavity DM who will refuse forever to provide a pole arm magic weapon when a PC has pole arm master feat.

[stoutstien]

Irrelevant. The DM already decided and approved the PCs having magic weapons that allow overcoming non-magical weapon resistance. It's a question of what form they take, and it's the donkey cavity DM who will refuse forever to provide a pole arm magic weapon when a PC has pole arm master feat.

.... Which is only a factor when resistance to magical weapon attacks occurs.
For most tables that's never, so often that the magical weapons are built into an assumptions in some regards, or maybe once or twice where it's specifically set up so they can overcome a challenge via teamwork, alternative tactics, or plot progression.

[Witty Username]

The exact weapon for a kensei archer's build isn't a longbow, it's any ranged weapon that works with Sharpen the Blade. And there are actually more such weapons than there are magic hand crossbows.

Well yes, Sharpen the blade works with non-magical ranged weapons, and I think Oathbow. XBE expert only works with crossbows, magical and otherwise.

[diplomancer]

Well yes, Sharpen the blade works with non-magical ranged weapons, and I think Oathbow. XBE expert only works with crossbows, magical and otherwise.

There are quite a lot of other bows that don't give bonuses to hit and damage (it has to give to both. If it just has a damage bonus it still works, and stacks).

[LudicSavant]

Well yes, Sharpen the blade works with non-magical ranged weapons, and I think Oathbow.

As I mentioned earlier, Sharpen the Blade actually works with many magical weapons, Oathbow being but one of them.

[Psyren]

Well yes, Sharpen the blade works with non-magical ranged weapons, and I think Oathbow. XBE expert only works with crossbows, magical and otherwise.


There are quite a lot of other bows that don't give bonuses to hit and damage (it has to give to both. If it just has a damage bonus it still works, and stacks).


As I mentioned earlier, Sharpen the Blade actually works with many magical weapons, Oathbow being but one of them.

I covered this as well (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?655821-Does-anyone-else-worry-about-finding-other-items-when-they-take-PAM&p=25760495&viewfull=1#post25760495), with examples.

[Pex]

.... Which is only a factor when resistance to magical weapon attacks occurs.
For most tables that's never, so often that the magical weapons are built into an assumptions in some regards, or maybe once or twice where it's specifically set up so they can overcome a challenge via teamwork, alternative tactics, or plot progression.

The game functions with the PC never having any magic items is not the same thing as PC should never have magic items. Magic items are part of the game. They are part of player fun. It is already a given by scenario the DM will hand out magic weapons regardless of what kind of monsters will appear in the game. It's only a question of what type, and there's no reason {Scrubbed} to refuse a magic weapon suitable for pole arm master feat to the player whose PC has it. What the magical properties are of the weapon are up to the DM, but it is a magic weapon suitable to the power level the DM prefers and equivalent to the other items/magic weapons other PCs have, i.e. if the paladin has a frost brand and the barbarian has a giant slayer you don't give the fighter a +0 glaive that never gets dirty.

[Witty Username]

Rereading through the DMG, (I could have sworn alot more items had random +X attack/damage), and it was rewarded with a alot of options like that, but they are all swords.

I still think +1 weapons are pretty available in most games (even if it is only 1 option in the DMG), but I admit that there were more options than I was actively aware of.


I am curious how that build would look for kensei weapons? So like favorite melee weapon (you have to pick one) than Longbow, shortbow, and darts (without XBE) or Longbow, Light crossbow, and hand crossbow (with XBE)?

[Dork_Forge]

I am curious how that build would look for kensei weapons? So like favorite melee weapon (you have to pick one) than Longbow, shortbow, and darts (without XBE) or Longbow, Light crossbow, and hand crossbow (with XBE)?

I'm not sure what you're asking here? But to clarify, you do get more Kensei weapon options as you level up, so it's possible to cover a spread or specifically choose one the party already has a cool magic version of.

You can also just carry a mundane one. Use a +1 sword all day then bust out the mundane one and make it a +3 for a boss fight.

[Cheesegear]

It's only a question of what type, and there's no reason {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} to refuse a magic weapon suitable for pole arm master feat to the player whose PC has it.

You're effectively saying - as you have said in other threads - that if your character has certain traits or abilities - specifically, traits or abilities that depend on loot drops - the DM should be forced to warp the game's loot around your character. If your DM doesn't warp the game's mechanics to suit your character, then they are a bad DM and you are free to call them names - which you are doing.

Now, for your argument, the DM must now provide tailored loot - whether it makes sense or not - for all members of the party, otherwise blatant favoritism is being shown. You can't give one player the exact loot they want, and not do it for another player...Now you're doing it for all players. The DM actually doesn't control their game anymore. Whatever the players want, they get, and if they don't get it, they're going to call the DM names.

To whit; It appears that you see D&D as an escapist power fantasy. No more, and certainly not less. If the DM doesn't provide an escapist power fantasy to you, then you don't want to play anymore. Fair play to you. That's certainly one aspect of D&D that I very much enjoyed at one stage of my life.

But the DMs I talk to generally aren't in the habit of giving players the things they ask for, just because the player asked for demanded it. As I said, what you give to one player, you kind of have to give to all players. So it actually is easier to say 'No', than 'Yes.' Because saying 'No' is easy. Saying 'Yes' to one player, but 'No' to another, causes all sorts of problems at the table. So just say no every time. Whilst a DM shouldn't reduce everything to a dice roll, I believe, that loot is one of the things that they should.

And then go back to random loot. Then it's not the DM's fault. The dice are gonna do what dice are gonna do. No favorites.

Then you can meta-game the random loot rolls; You know, as a player, that most magic weapons - at least those with properties that actually change gameplay - are axes and swords. Not Polearms...So don't take Polearm Master, take Great Weapon Fighting:
DM: ...Wait. So you're saying that if I go by random loot rolls. Smart players, who are smart enough to know that Polearm Master is good, wont take Polearm Master in the first place, because that means that they're less likely to get magical weapons that actually matter...Effectively removing Polearm Master from my table, even though I didn't actually have to ban it? I mean, Great Weapon Fighting is still a pain in the arse...But at least no more Polearm Master?
...Yes. A benefit to random loot rolls is that you discourage players from taking Feats like Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master. Isn't that great? :smalltongue:
(Yes, players, I know you wont see that as a good thing. But DMs do.)

Now, the secondary problem...That is related to random loot...Is that in addition to random loot, some DMs will also tack on that there isn't any way to change or add the magic items that the party does want, if the random loot doesn't go their way:
"If I get a magic item I don't want and/or like, I'm stuck with it forever and the random roll was a dead roll, and the DM is stealing loot progression from us by giving us dead items."

I don't know if that's what you're projecting. But it seems like that's what you're actually projecting.

"It says in the DMG that magic shops are impractical because they are effectively troves of magic items in a single location..."

True. But it doesn't exactly say that you can't trade gold for magic items. It more or less says that if you want to buy a magic item - specifically, one you want - it shouldn't be as easy as walking into a shop and handing the shopkeeper money, and them giving you a Javelin of Lightning in return. Acquiring a magic item is a whole...Thing. Xanathar's says it takes like a week to get a magic item you want, and it might not even be legit, and also you might make an enemy or two, and...Yeah. I find 'It takes a week to actually do the thing...' a big problem in Xanathar's, but it's easy enough to work around if you understand the idea of what Xanathar's is trying to say, even if the mechanics are b0rked.

A DM can say 'Random loot rolls. No favourtism.' ...That's what I literally say, even.
But a good DM, a fair DM, has to know having no recourse to a bad roll, just isn't...Fun...
You find...Another Scroll of Jump...I guess...That sucks for you.

...The players should obviously sell that Scroll of Jump, get gold, and use that gold to work to buy something actually good. Of course, the Instant Gratification mechanism in your brain doesn't get triggered by doing things roundabout like that. But again that relates back to power fantasies. So...


TL,DR; Random loot is only a problem if your DM doesn't offer a recourse to dead loot.

[Witty Username]

I'm not sure what you're asking here? But to clarify, you do get more Kensei weapon options as you level up, so it's possible to cover a spread or specifically choose one the party already has a cool magic version of.

You can also just carry a mundane one. Use a +1 sword all day then bust out the mundane one and make it a +3 for a boss fight.

Yeah, my thinking was more what would a good spread be. I am aware that it goes up through play (I looked up real quick what an 11th level kensei would have for reference before I posted, 1 melee, 1 ranged and a couple options for flex picks.

And to cover the drift a bit, I don't think sharpen the blade is a bad feature, I recognize that it can be used for value. I have some interest in the dpr argument, but not much (that is more how builds are compared to each other than how useful a feature is in the moment).
If I were doing kensei analysis, I would be more interested in ki cost and that it is reasonable to have an idea of build damage that doesn't include sharpen the blade as sometimes ki will be devoted in other directions, like ki focused attack (focused aim to trigger fueled attack) or stunning strike, than minutiae of magic item overlap.
Kinda like how some guides I have seen for barbarian don't factor in rage at low levels, in that case more for general lack of resource than competition for resources.

My primary goal was more some of why optimization guides don't factor in magic items for build advice, because its generally unreliable as the usual stated reason its not discussed much, as otherwise it would require more table assumptions than most guides want to get into, Treantmonk happened to be the first I thought of (he talked about it directly in his kensei video, so it is one of the more direct examples for citation). I have opinions on monk, kensei, and sharpen the blade, but that was not the part of the discussion I intended to focus on.
--
In the Pex and Cheesegear direction,
I think I am more in the camp that random loot isn't obligated to cater to specific builds to satisfy player agency, I think that DMs should endeavor to provide some in the direction of players, but that would be in quest hooks and long-tern goal setting type things in game than an expectation for loot to line up correctly.

I have rarely heard a player complain about getting weird magic items that don't fit their current plan, and magic weapons are useful (PAM may be better than longsword, but you'll just be happy you can deal full damage to a ghost, for a play example).

[Aimeryan]

You're effectively saying - as you have said in other threads - that if your character has certain traits or abilities - specifically, traits or abilities that depend on loot drops - the DM should be forced to warp the game's loot around your character. If your DM doesn't warp the game's mechanics to suit your character, then they are a bad DM and you are free to call them names - which you are doing.

[...]

TL,DR; Random loot is only a problem if your DM doesn't offer a recourse to dead loot.

I think you and Pex are arguing for the same thing. I have not got the impression that Pex is saying that only the appropriate loot must drop; I am sure he is fine with there being a minor sidetrip to trade in for something equivalent.

There may be DMs who want you go on a session-length quest to trade in your +1 Sword for a +1 Halberd, which is where people might disagree on whether this is reasonable or not - personally I think that is too much for what should be a simple trade. There are probably even DMs who would demand a multi-session quest for something like this, which would be fine only if it gave access to an NPC who could skip this for future such trades (think, well-connected magic item broker).

[stoutstien]

The game functions with the PC never having any magic items is not the same thing as PC should never have magic items. Magic items are part of the game. They are part of player fun. It is already a given by scenario the DM will hand out magic weapons regardless of what kind of monsters will appear in the game. It's only a question of what type, and there's no reason other than to be a donkey cavity to refuse a magic weapon suitable for pole arm master feat to the player whose PC has it. What the magical properties are of the weapon are up to the DM, but it is a magic weapon suitable to the power level the DM prefers and equivalent to the other items/magic weapons other PCs have, i.e. if the paladin has a frost brand and the barbarian has a giant slayer you don't give the fighter a +0 glaive that never gets dirty.

No. It's a given that the party gets treasure at random and they are having fun in spite of your beliefs that the DM is somehow inferior. The DM isn't *refusing* anything and who knows maybe they never roll up a magic weapon. It's unlikely but sometimes the dice do weird things.
It's almost like each table is unique so different personal tastes aren't universally supported as a base assumption of the system.

[Aimeryan]

No. It's a given that the party gets treasure at random and they are having fun in spite of your beliefs that the DM is somehow inferior. The DM isn't *refusing* anything and who knows maybe they never roll up a magic weapon. It's unlikely but sometimes the dice do weird things.
It's almost like each table is unique so different personal tastes aren't universally supported as a base assumption of the system.

If you mean in general, treasure does absolutely not need to be random. If you mean in this particular scenario that is a given, it still doesn't change the fact that the DM is then choosing to not allow remedy to that by obvious established means (trading like for like; selling and buying something else; breaking down for components and crafting; etc.).

If the DM is choosing random loot, then the DM made a choice. If the DM is choosing to not allow any form of remedy, then the DM is again making a choice. These are not normal givens.

[stoutstien]

If you mean in general, treasure does absolutely not need to be random. If you mean in this particular scenario that is a given, it still doesn't change the fact that the DM is then choosing to not allow remedy to that by obvious established means (trading like for like; selling and buying something else; breaking down for components and crafting; etc.).

If the DM is choosing random loot, then the DM made a choice. If the DM is choosing to not allow any form of remedy, then the DM is again making a choice. These are not normal givens.


Nothing is a given. That's the point. Not even trading/buying/selling less than desirable magical items. It's not a remedy because there isn't a symptom of anything besides trying to impose personal preferences into a system that has none. If anything the assumption that you can do such is in direct conflict of the buying and selling magic item section of the DMG. It's almost like the system doesn't make any real attempts to apply major impactful setting mechanics without DM input. For all you know all magical items are considered contraband and possession of them is punishable by death.


The original question had nothing to do with the DM's preference on how they are distributing magic items. the question was whether or not that it's common to consider such distribution when analyzing opportunity costs, and if so, how does one go about it.

[stayhoided]

You're effectively saying - as you have said in other threads - that if your character has certain traits or abilities - specifically, traits or abilities that depend on loot drops - the DM should be forced to warp the game's loot around your character. If your DM doesn't warp the game's mechanics to suit your character, then they are a bad DM and you are free to call them names - which you are doing.

Now, for your argument, the DM must now provide tailored loot - whether it makes sense or not - for all members of the party, otherwise blatant favoritism is being shown. You can't give one player the exact loot they want, and not do it for another player...Now you're doing it for all players. The DM actually doesn't control their game anymore. Whatever the players want, they get, and if they don't get it, they're going to call the DM names.


I think there is a pretty big difference between a player saying "I want a specific magic item right now tailored to me - winged boots, strength belt, sentinel shield, etc." and a player saying "I see you've given me a +1 weapon, is it possible to make that +1 weapon a spear instead of a sword?"

I don't really consider the second to be "tailoring the items" towards a character. They were given a +1 weapon already. They didn't say "DM GIVE ME A PLUS ONE WEAPON." The DM dropped one when they felt it was appropriate - the player just wants to re-flavor it so that it fits their build better. {Scrubbed}

[da newt]

Assuming I counted correctly, in the DMG loot tables there are 5 generic magic weapons (any weapon type), 16 swords, and 2 spear/staff/polearms that a martial class PC can attune to (both staffs) and 11 other weapons (maces, hammers, tridents, daggers, bows, etc).

The DMG states the DM chooses the weapon type of generic magic weapon loot or determines it randomly (there are 37 weapons in the PHB, 5 of those are PAM weapons). If your DM decides to stick to random = random "you get what you get, and you don't pitch a fit', your chances of finding a magic PAM Weapon would be VERY low.

This is definitely an important session zero topic.

[Psyren]

Random loot is fine.
Random encounters are fine.
Both together are fine.

I think the issue here though, or at least the factor that could most likely result in an issue if the DM isn't careful, would be if the randomness either (a) invalidates a player's build and leads to them having less fun, or (b) favors some players at the table over others because they get the magic items they need and that player doesn't - again, leading to them having less fun.

So long as the DM is willing to step in and put a finger on the scale if either of these start happening, randomness is fine.

[Theodoxus]

You're effectively saying - as you have said in other threads - that if your character has certain traits or abilities - specifically, traits or abilities that depend on loot drops - the DM should be forced to warp the game's loot around your character. If your DM doesn't warp the game's mechanics to suit your character, then they are a bad DM and you are free to call them names - which you are doing.

Now, for your argument, the DM must now provide tailored loot - whether it makes sense or not - for all members of the party, otherwise blatant favoritism is being shown. You can't give one player the exact loot they want, and not do it for another player...Now you're doing it for all players. The DM actually doesn't control their game anymore. Whatever the players want, they get, and if they don't get it, they're going to call the DM names.

To whit; It appears that you see D&D as an escapist power fantasy. No more, and certainly not less. If the DM doesn't provide an escapist power fantasy to you, then you don't want to play anymore. Fair play to you. That's certainly one aspect of D&D that I very much enjoyed at one stage of my life.

But the DMs I talk to generally aren't in the habit of giving players the things they ask for, just because the player asked for demanded it. As I said, what you give to one player, you kind of have to give to all players. So it actually is easier to say 'No', than 'Yes.' Because saying 'No' is easy. Saying 'Yes' to one player, but 'No' to another, causes all sorts of problems at the table. So just say no every time. Whilst a DM shouldn't reduce everything to a dice roll, I believe, that loot is one of the things that they should.

And then go back to random loot. Then it's not the DM's fault. The dice are gonna do what dice are gonna do. No favorites.

Then you can meta-game the random loot rolls; You know, as a player, that most magic weapons - at least those with properties that actually change gameplay - are axes and swords. Not Polearms...So don't take Polearm Master, take Great Weapon Fighting:
DM: ...Wait. So you're saying that if I go by random loot rolls. Smart players, who are smart enough to know that Polearm Master is good, wont take Polearm Master in the first place, because that means that they're less likely to get magical weapons that actually matter...Effectively removing Polearm Master from my table, even though I didn't actually have to ban it? I mean, Great Weapon Fighting is still a pain in the arse...But at least no more Polearm Master?
...Yes. A benefit to random loot rolls is that you discourage players from taking Feats like Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master. Isn't that great? :smalltongue:
(Yes, players, I know you wont see that as a good thing. But DMs do.)

Now, the secondary problem...That is related to random loot...Is that in addition to random loot, some DMs will also tack on that there isn't any way to change or add the magic items that the party does want, if the random loot doesn't go their way:
"If I get a magic item I don't want and/or like, I'm stuck with it forever and the random roll was a dead roll, and the DM is stealing loot progression from us by giving us dead items."

I don't know if that's what you're projecting. But it seems like that's what you're actually projecting.

"It says in the DMG that magic shops are impractical because they are effectively troves of magic items in a single location..."

True. But it doesn't exactly say that you can't trade gold for magic items. It more or less says that if you want to buy a magic item - specifically, one you want - it shouldn't be as easy as walking into a shop and handing the shopkeeper money, and them giving you a Javelin of Lightning in return. Acquiring a magic item is a whole...Thing. Xanathar's says it takes like a week to get a magic item you want, and it might not even be legit, and also you might make an enemy or two, and...Yeah. I find 'It takes a week to actually do the thing...' a big problem in Xanathar's, but it's easy enough to work around if you understand the idea of what Xanathar's is trying to say, even if the mechanics are b0rked.

A DM can say 'Random loot rolls. No favourtism.' ...That's what I literally say, even.
But a good DM, a fair DM, has to know having no recourse to a bad roll, just isn't...Fun...
You find...Another Scroll of Jump...I guess...That sucks for you.

...The players should obviously sell that Scroll of Jump, get gold, and use that gold to work to buy something actually good. Of course, the Instant Gratification mechanism in your brain doesn't get triggered by doing things roundabout like that. But again that relates back to power fantasies. So...


TL,DR; Random loot is only a problem if your DM doesn't offer a recourse to dead loot.


I think there is a pretty big difference between a player saying "I want a specific magic item right now tailored to me - winged boots, strength belt, sentinel shield, etc." and a player saying "I see you've given me a +1 weapon, is it possible to make that +1 weapon a spear instead of a sword?"

I don't really consider the second to be "tailoring the items" towards a character. They were given a +1 weapon already. They didn't say "DM GIVE ME A PLUS ONE WEAPON." The DM dropped one when they felt it was appropriate - the player just wants to re-flavor it so that it fits their build better. I think it's also pretty disingenuous to say that if the DM abides this request of turning a sword into a spear that they no longer "control their game."

Outside of dragon hoards and the occasional "I'm hiding this weapon away that is deadly to me / my kind, specifically" (as referenced earlier re: sunblade), loot shouldn't be random. It should be used against the party first, and yes, that means consumables should be very rarely found. If a player has PAM, I'm going to throw opponents at them that also have PAM. It might be a mundane staff, spear or pike they're facing - but it might also be magical (especially in tier 2+.)

An owlbear isn't going to drop a +1 dagger; this isn't some Blizzard knock-off RPG where weird stuff that makes no sense is found on dead critters. Maybe if you're taking out a spider lair, you might find some dead guy in chainmail with a shiny mace or something, but dead spiders don't drop armor and weapons and rings and cloaks.

My players have 3 options when it comes to specific loot: start with it (as noted earlier), make it/commission it (artificers are a thing), or quest for it. Legendary items specifically have legends about them. You want that Holy Avenger for your Paladin? Research it, and quest for it. Anything uncommon or rare, especially weapons and armor I have no problem changing on the fly; but it'll be before combat starts. A group of Thugs might have one magic weapon between them. It would be tailored to one of the PCs. This would be a good time to boost the Thug, maybe even giving them a feat pertinent (PAM, GWM, Dueling, etc.) to the specific weapon. Makes it a little more fun as a DM, makes it a little riskier for the party, and then they know why that Thug is hitting harder and more accurately, so they know it'll be dropping loot like a piñata.

[da newt]

"So long as the DM is willing to step in and put a finger on the scale if either of these start happening, randomness is fine."

That's like an oxymoron wrapped in a contradiction, but yeah - I agree. The inherent disparity of some weapon types in the random loot tables is only an issue when it causes issues, and when that occurs the DM ought to eagerly step in to ensure everything is fair / enjoyable.

My Ranger is very disappointed in the lack of love that bows get in terms of random loot tables (boring and rare), but he managed to track down a magic longbow so it's fine ...

[Willie the Duck]

I don't really consider the second to be "tailoring the items" towards a character. They were given a +1 weapon already. They didn't say "DM GIVE ME A PLUS ONE WEAPON." The DM dropped one when they felt it was appropriate - the player just wants to re-flavor it so that it fits their build better.

Hold on, this one is simply a nomenclature issue -- changing something so that it better fits the individual receiving it isn't 'tailoring?'

[Psyren]

"So long as the DM is willing to step in and put a finger on the scale if either of these start happening, randomness is fine."

That's like an oxymoron wrapped in a contradiction, but yeah - I agree. The inherent disparity of some weapon types in the random loot tables is only an issue when it causes issues, and when that occurs the DM ought to eagerly step in to ensure everything is fair / enjoyable.

It's not an oxymoron at all, you can use both. The default can be random loot generation, which has benefits like (a) saving a lot of time designing encounters and (b) giving the players items neither they nor the DM might ever have thought to use, resulting in all kinds of creative expression. And then you can choose to ensure the player who is built around a specific weapon gets what they need some ways into the campaign without dropping the randomness for the remainder of it.

[stayhoided]

Hold on, this one is simply a nomenclature issue -- changing something so that it better fits the individual receiving it isn't 'tailoring?'

Context between my post and the one I was replying to. If you read the whole post I'm comparing the difference between wanting a specific magic item and wanting to re-flavor an item the DM already gave out.

I think pointing that in a vacuum any type of customization is "tailoring" is pointless and doesn't add to the discussion at hand.

[Pex]

You're effectively saying - as you have said in other threads - that if your character has certain traits or abilities - specifically, traits or abilities that depend on loot drops - the DM should be forced to warp the game's loot around your character. If your DM doesn't warp the game's mechanics to suit your character, then they are a bad DM and you are free to call them names - which you are doing.

Now, for your argument, the DM must now provide tailored loot - whether it makes sense or not - for all members of the party, otherwise blatant favoritism is being shown. You can't give one player the exact loot they want, and not do it for another player...Now you're doing it for all players. The DM actually doesn't control their game anymore. Whatever the players want, they get, and if they don't get it, they're going to call the DM names.



Quote snippage for brevity of space only.

Players not getting everything they want is not the same thing as players never getting what they want. Yes, I whole heartedly agree and support when the DM is ready for magic items to appear in the game players get something they would like. It is part of their fun, and it is in the DM's job description to provide for that fun. I do not apologize for this position. I will cheer it on the mountain tops to echo all over the world. It's not a burden on the DM to provide for an item a player would like. The DM is not the players' adversary. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. The DM controls when the magic item presents itself, the effect the magic item has, the form the magic item takes.

A PC wizard exists. That does not mean he must have a Pearl of Power or Wand of the War Mage or a Staff of Power or a Robe of the Archmage or Bracers of Defense or Wand of Fireball the DM is a big meany for not giving it to him. The point is only and has ever been when the DM is ready to provide for magic items in the game the PC wizard will get an item of the DM's choice of permission the player would enjoy having and find useful for being a wizard. Maybe it is one of those items. Maybe it is something else. This goes for every PC everywhere.

Sure thing there can exist magic items the PCs don't currently have a use for. Players are notorious for finding creative uses for them later in the game and have a blast of fun using it in their ingenuity to save the day. This is not a mutually exclusive scenario for a PC having something nice they can use right now and forever the rest of the campaign.

I still remember my first 5E campaign way back when in 2014. Before a game session the DM said "I'm a DM who believes a player should never get what he wants." I quit that game the same game session. Not specifically because of that quote, but it was a contributing factor as evidence his game was not for me. It is the DM's campaign, but it is everyone's game.


No. It's a given that the party gets treasure at random and they are having fun in spite of your beliefs that the DM is somehow inferior. The DM isn't *refusing* anything and who knows maybe they never roll up a magic weapon. It's unlikely but sometimes the dice do weird things.
It's almost like each table is unique so different personal tastes aren't universally supported as a base assumption of the system.

Even the DMG random loot tables provide for Weapon +1, Weapon of Warning, Weapon +2, etc. If the DM is refusing forever to have such weapons be suitable for Pole Arm Master feat when a PC has taken that feat then yes, the DM is a meany donkey cavity. It is no longer random and has become a DM deliberate choice.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

There seem to be some pretty extreme views in this thread. I would start by suggesting that neither players nor the DM should behave in ways that escalate conflict between them at the table:
1. The player should not assume that the DM is out to get them or punishing them if they don't find the magic item they are hoping to find
2. The DM should not assume that the player is being demanding/rude in wanting a specific magic item

The following two views are unreasonable:
1. I will quit the game if the DM doesn't give me the magic item I want
2. I will refuse to give the player a specific magic item that isn't overpowered that would really help his character

Thankfully, there is a happy medium between these points of view!

If the player really wants a specific magic item that would be helpful but not overpowered, they should discuss this with the group (not just the DM!). Express an interest in this, and maybe obtaining the item becomes the focus of a side-adventure. Maybe it's as simple as negotiating with NPCs to find someone in town who has one, or maybe it involves learning that one is known to be kept in a tomb or other dungeon somewhere. Most DMs are much more receptive to this than just asking them to provide you with the item.

Your general take on this thread lines up with mine. I think most DMs lie somewhere in the middle, not tailoring too much to a party/ characters, but also making sure nobody is severely 'behind' due to a couple of rolls on a magic table.

I find magic is needed, to some extent, for martials. With BPS resistance being fairly common as you level, at minimum, martials need something so that they aren't doing 1/2 damage regularly. Beyond that I do try to keep my players fairly balanced, so regardless of what the table or published mod says I'm going to throw in something more than a +1 in where it's needed. The reality is, for optimized martials there's less requirement to do that than those that aren't. So, for those that have taken PAM (and more so XBE with the Archery style, SS, and ranged benefit) there's less need to tailor items.

Long and short of it, it you're at my table by about 6th level you've got a magical sharp (or blunt) stick of your choice someway or other. Beyond that... depends.

[Vorpalchicken]

If I roll something weird like a magic blowgun (Donjon random dungeons seems to oddly favour blowguns for some reason), I'll probably change it to something that at least someone can use.

Magic swords will usually be more common and better quality than magic pole arms however. That's just built into the game. If someone wants to use a low class weapon for better mechanical benefit and ignore tradition, that's on the player.

[stoutstien]

[I][SIZE=1]
Even the DMG random loot tables provide for Weapon +1, Weapon of Warning, Weapon +2, etc. If the DM is refusing forever to have such weapons be suitable for Pole Arm Master feat when a PC has taken that feat then yes, the DM is a meany donkey cavity. It is no longer random and has become a DM deliberate choice.

So agreed apon random is fine until a player feels bad then the DM is bad/wrong for being consistent just because the player took a certain feat? That sounds like a horrible table culture that I would avoid as both player and GM. That doesn't sound like fun at all.

I might have more sympathy for this if there wasn't a thousand and one different ways for players to explicitly have built-in magical weapon damage without found magical items or it's applicability was more widespread as far as overcoming immunity. I'm also one who thinks the entire concept of weapon damage types and such are a horrible model for this but within 5e frame it's serviceable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So agreed apon random is fine until a player feels bad then the DM is bad/wrong for being consistent just because the player took a certain feat? That sounds like a horrible table culture that I would avoid as both player and GM. That doesn't sound like fun at all.

I might have more sympathy for this if there wasn't a thousand and one different ways for players to explicitly have built-in magical weapon damage without found magical items or it's applicability was more widespread as far as overcoming immunity. I'm also one who thinks the entire concept of weapon damage types and such are a horrible model for this but within 5e frame it's serviceable.

I agree with this overall.

Personally, I'd much prefer to move away from weapon-group/damage-type-specific feats entirely. Move the relevant pieces to one/multiple of
a) class features (ie "when wielding a <X>, you get <Y> starting at level <Z>")
b) inherent weapon properties (so anyone while wielding an <X> can do <Y>)
c) nowhere (for things like SS's cover-piercing, which was a horrible idea from the get-go).

A fighter, especially, should just flat out be able to power attack with anything. And bonus action attacks (if they exist, which I'm not fond of) should be gated via class features not feat + weapon choice. That way they're part of the core system, not optional add-ins that skew the system entirely because the rest of the system doesn't expect them.

[Willie the Duck]

Even the DMG random loot tables provide for Weapon +1, Weapon of Warning, Weapon +2, etc. If the DM is refusing forever to have such weapons be suitable for Pole Arm Master feat when a PC has taken that feat then yes, the DM is a meany donkey cavity. It is no longer random and has become a DM deliberate choice.
But again, this 'refusing forever' character is a far cry from the OP*, the experiences most of us are likely to have**, or really anything outside this whole-cloth construction or maybe an old-timey black and white movie (complete with actual mustache twirling and someone tied to railroad tracks). It's hypothetical, not straw, but also sufficiently unlikely that points specific to it (non-generalizable to a more realistic scenario) really could just be acknowledged as universally accepted*** and we can move on.
*where it is simply the general concern of magic weapons coming up other than those PAM-able and whether this is taken into account in optimization discussions
**where by luck of the draw the non-PAM magic weapon might turn up first, or both show up but the non-PAM one is cooler, or there is a way to trade for what you want but it requires legwork or fees
***it's not clear, you do know that no one is defending this fictive DM in this outlandish scenario, right?


I find magic is needed, to some extent, for martials. With BPS resistance being fairly common as you level, at minimum, martials need something so that they aren't doing 1/2 damage regularly.
This too might be a bit of a focus on actions contrary to an extreme(ly unlikely DMing technique). There just aren't that many DMs who are going to throw their party into the 'Pit of Wights, Wraiths, Night Hags, Devils, and Demons' without so much as a moon-touched weapon (because, as you allude, it then become the 'non-martial power hour'). The game where the there's a disparity in magic item strength between what the specialist vs. the anything-user has at a given moment, or where the specialist might be using a sub-optimal setup (say, using a magic bow against the resistant baddies when they have SS and XBE and would prefer a hand crossbow) seem significantly more realistic (or just the generalist running into something with a plus a couple levels before the resistant enemies show up).

[stoutstien]

I agree with this overall.

Personally, I'd much prefer to move away from weapon-group/damage-type-specific feats entirely. Move the relevant pieces to one/multiple of
a) class features (ie "when wielding a <X>, you get <Y> starting at level <Z>")
b) inherent weapon properties (so anyone while wielding an <X> can do <Y>)
c) nowhere (for things like SS's cover-piercing, which was a horrible idea from the get-go).

A fighter, especially, should just flat out be able to power attack with anything. And bonus action attacks (if they exist, which I'm not fond of) should be gated via class features not feat + weapon choice. That way they're part of the core system, not optional add-ins that skew the system entirely because the rest of the system doesn't expect them.

Aye. I brought back a form of BaB and damage for fighters and man does it feel good for 5e for making fighters feel like the martial expert rather than a "feats the class".

[Aimeryan]

Nothing is a given. That's the point. Not even trading/buying/selling less than desirable magical items. It's not a remedy because there isn't a symptom of anything besides trying to impose personal preferences into a system that has none. If anything the assumption that you can do such is in direct conflict of the buying and selling magic item section of the DMG. It's almost like the system doesn't make any real attempts to apply major impactful setting mechanics without DM input. For all you know all magical items are considered contraband and possession of them is punishable by death.


The original question had nothing to do with the DM's preference on how they are distributing magic items. the question was whether or not that it's common to consider such distribution when analyzing opportunity costs, and if so, how does one go about it.

If the DM is making that sort of campaign with just a few select magic weapons that are basically legendary rarity (but not so in game terms), that is fine - just make sure it comes up in session 0. In such a case, I wouldn't be worrying about it for weapon feats - I wouldn't play a class that used weapons in such a campaign.

Otherwise, I don't worry about it in normal campaigns, since an uncommon magic weapon are merely uncommon - not impossible. Random loot doesn't matter at all here; it doesn't matter if there was a 99.9% chance it was a sword and 0.1% it was a polearm - I would simply take it to an appropriate venue and trade it in for a polearm. Just because the 'random' loot tables are flawed doesn't mean the rest of the world is.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

The broader question that this thread brings to mind is this:
Is it intentional design that the best martial feats/ fighting setups don't align with the bulk of the magical weapons, particularly the higher powered magical weapons?
Based on magic tables alone the best way to have a crack at a really good magical weapon is to be a Str based S+B fighter. Sure you can take Dueling + Shield Master, but this is not generally seen as optimized. At the other extreme XBE +Archery is considered excellent, but you've narrowed your chances of getting something that fit's your build down to almost nil.

So, if this is intentional design, should DMs really be putting their hand on the scale? Maybe there just aren't supposed to be a bunch of magical crossbows.
My personal thought is that this is intentional design, and beyond at least providing something that overcomes BPS resistance I'm pretty reluctant to tailor items to optimized builds.

[diplomancer]

The broader question that this thread brings to mind is this:
Is it intentional design that the best martial feats/ fighting setups don't align with the bulk of the magical weapons, particularly the higher powered magical weapons?
Based on magic tables alone the best way to have a crack at a really good magical weapon is to be a Str based S+B fighter. Sure you can take Dueling + Shield Master, but this is not generally seen as optimized. At the other extreme XBE +Archery is considered excellent, but you've narrowed your chances of getting something that fit's your build down to almost nil.

So, if this is intentional design, should DMs really be putting their hand on the scale? Maybe there just aren't supposed to be a bunch of magical crossbows.
My personal thought is that this is intentional design, and beyond at least providing something that overcomes BPS resistance I'm pretty reluctant to tailor items to optimized builds.

I disagree. If it were intentional design, they wouldn't add spears and staffs to PAM (not only because it's silly that it works, but because those are pretty common as magical weapons go).

It's also very weird from a world-building perspective. Here we have a world where the best non-magical weapons belong to one group (because those weapons are the ones that work with the best Feats), but for some unexplainable reason people spend months or years making magical weapons of the inferior weapon group.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree. If it were intentional design, they wouldn't add spears and staffs to PAM (not only because it's silly that it works, but because those are pretty common as magical weapons go).

It's also very weird from a world-building perspective. Here we have a world where the best non-magical weapons belong to one group (because those weapons are the ones that work with the best Feats), but for some unexplainable reason people spend months or years making magical weapons of the inferior weapon group.

I agree that it's likely not intentional. For one thing, feats were originally considered optional and nothing was really balanced around them. And my best reading of the magic items (and just about everything else, to be honest) is that they went for archetypal "iconic" things (including callbacks to earlier editions) instead of some mechanistic balance sense. The best items aren't swords because swords are the best, but because swords are, in many of the source materials, the "iconic" weapons of a hero. Scimitars are almost uniformly the weapons of enemies. Even Drizt uses them mostly because he was of "the enemy" at one point. Spears are (in this warped view of things) for primitives and goons/mooks. Etc

[Pex]

So agreed apon random is fine until a player feels bad then the DM is bad/wrong for being consistent just because the player took a certain feat? That sounds like a horrible table culture that I would avoid as both player and GM. That doesn't sound like fun at all.

I might have more sympathy for this if there wasn't a thousand and one different ways for players to explicitly have built-in magical weapon damage without found magical items or it's applicability was more widespread as far as overcoming immunity. I'm also one who thinks the entire concept of weapon damage types and such are a horrible model for this but within 5e frame it's serviceable.


I agree with this overall.

Personally, I'd much prefer to move away from weapon-group/damage-type-specific feats entirely. Move the relevant pieces to one/multiple of
a) class features (ie "when wielding a <X>, you get <Y> starting at level <Z>")
b) inherent weapon properties (so anyone while wielding an <X> can do <Y>)
c) nowhere (for things like SS's cover-piercing, which was a horrible idea from the get-go).

A fighter, especially, should just flat out be able to power attack with anything. And bonus action attacks (if they exist, which I'm not fond of) should be gated via class features not feat + weapon choice. That way they're part of the core system, not optional add-ins that skew the system entirely because the rest of the system doesn't expect them.

We're playing the game we have not what we wish to have.


But again, this 'refusing forever' character is a far cry from the OP*, the experiences most of us are likely to have**, or really anything outside this whole-cloth construction or maybe an old-timey black and white movie (complete with actual mustache twirling and someone tied to railroad tracks). It's hypothetical, not straw, but also sufficiently unlikely that points specific to it (non-generalizable to a more realistic scenario) really could just be acknowledged as universally accepted*** and we can move on.
*where it is simply the general concern of magic weapons coming up other than those PAM-able and whether this is taken into account in optimization discussions
**where by luck of the draw the non-PAM magic weapon might turn up first, or both show up but the non-PAM one is cooler, or there is a way to trade for what you want but it requires legwork or fees
***it's not clear, you do know that no one is defending this fictive DM in this outlandish scenario, right?



I'm not claiming it's the OP's scenario. I answered the question "Does anyone else worry about finding other items when they take PAM?" I don't worry about it because I play with DMs who will provide for a qualifying magic weapon when he's ready for magic weapons in the game. For the DM who refuses, I'd know he was that type of DM before it mattered and have already quit. The DM who doesn't realize the discrepancy for lack of magical pole arm then fixes the problem isn't a meany, but then I'd know beforehand he wasn't a meany in the first place and of course would fix the issue. I recognize the DM type by years of experience. It wouldn't be this one thing of lack of magical pole arms. It is but a symptom of pattern of behavior. I have quit such games in the past year. I've learned not to tolerate it anymore. Meanwhile I'm enjoying other games.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We're playing the game we have not what we wish to have.

I'm a forever DM. I can and do change things to better fit what I and my table want. RAW only, by the book thinking is the source of all these problems.

If you want different games, DM them.

[trtl]

So I haven't really been following this thread since like page 2, which is fine, there's a lot of interesting discussion. For those that are curious, I decide to forgo PAM and stick to my sword and board.

Someone mentioned that they wouldn't be playing a martial if the magical weapon drops are randomized, because it nerfs martials. Overall, however, I'm pretty sure it's a net positive for martials as there are a heck of a lot more magic items out there for martials then casters.

Also, it never ceases to amaze me how worked up people on the internet get about how someone they'll never meet plays a campaign they have no part in.

[Leon]

Someone mentioned that they wouldn't be playing a martial if the magical weapon drops are randomized, because it nerfs martials. Overall, however, I'm pretty sure it's a net positive for martials as there are a heck of a lot more magic items out there for martials then casters.


A lot of people are so stuck in their very specific rut to ever change or think about change. Much of that may come from the ingrained assumptions that Martials needs the XYZ weapon feats to function well (they don't) My first game of 5e we didn't have much in the way of magic items but the DM did let us craft a wicked spear using some cobbled together crafting rules and the paladin didn't want to use it because "was a sword and board paladin"

[Cheesegear]

Someone mentioned that they wouldn't be playing a martial if the magical weapon drops are randomized, because it nerfs martials. Overall, however, I'm pretty sure it's a net positive for martials as there are a heck of a lot more magic items out there for martials then casters.

I think you're referring to what I said? ...If so, that's not what I said.

What I said was the vast majority of weapons that actually change gameplay (not simply +1 or +2; My go to so far has been Sun Blade), are axes and swords - Great Weapons at best? Not Polearms. The point I was actually making is that if magical weapon drops are randomised, it nerfs loot-based Feats, particularly Polearm Master, because there aren't really any good magical Polearms. The vast majority of good Polearms are (Quarter)Staffs, and most (all?) are only attunable by Spellcasters. If you are going to meta-game random loot rolls; Polearm Master ain't it. That was my point.

My point wasn't "Don't play martials", my point was "Don't take loot-specific Feats...And if you are going to lean into specific loot; Polearm Master might be the worst one to take because Polearms don't come up."

[da newt]

"Overall, however, I'm pretty sure it's a net positive for martials as there are a heck of a lot more magic items out there for martials then casters."

From a very quick and dirty rough counting of DMG random loot tables (close enough, but I'm sure there are errors):
Magic items for casters: 55
Magic martial Weapons: 37
Magic Armor: 56

There are lots of scrolls, wands, staffs, etc and armors that could be martial or cleric, druid, bard, artificer, etc and NOT monk / barbarian ...

[Psyren]

So agreed upon random is fine until a player feels bad then the DM is bad/wrong for being consistent just because the player took a certain feat? That sounds like a horrible table culture that I would avoid as both player and GM. That doesn't sound like fun at all.

Again though, there's two dimensions here - the randomness of the loot (agreed upon), and the encounter design, which may or may not be random at all. The table can agree on the former without necessarily having agreed to (or even having any knowledge of) the latter - and the overall fun for the players, especially that of the martials, comes from the interaction of both.


I might have more sympathy for this if there wasn't a thousand and one different ways for players to explicitly have built-in magical weapon damage without found magical items or it's applicability was more widespread as far as overcoming immunity. I'm also one who thinks the entire concept of weapon damage types and such are a horrible model for this but within 5e frame it's serviceable.

I don't think anyone's saying the player is completely hosed or has no options here. They're a paladin after all, Magic Weapon is on their list and they're proficient with whatever (non-polearm) magical weapons drop too. But if I was a PAM paladin in a campaign where no magic polearms could ever be found, and where most of the encounters were seemingly impacted by my damage being nonmagical, I would probably have a chat with the DM about changing my build.

[stoutstien]

Again though, there's two dimensions here - the randomness of the loot (agreed upon), and the encounter design, which may or may not be random at all. The table can agree on the former without necessarily having agreed to (or even having any knowledge of) the latter - and the overall fun for the players, especially that of the martials, comes from the interaction of both.



I don't think anyone's saying the player is completely hosed or has no options here. They're a paladin after all, Magic Weapon is on their list and they're proficient with whatever (non-polearm) magical weapons drop too. But if I was a PAM paladin in a campaign where no magic polearms could ever be found, and where most of the encounters were seemingly impacted by my damage being nonmagical, I would probably have a chat with the DM about changing my build.

This is very true but earlier i pointed out how uncommon that immunity to non-magical weapon damages actually is. Even if we bring in blanket resistance it's a tiny portion of the NPCs.

Tables that are regularly facing off against this type of encounters regularly without magical weapon is usually either by design because the GM/campaign is looking for tension or by mistake because 5e buried the lead on encounter design.

I think we're generally in agreement that it's not a good mechanical representation of what it's trying to be and magical loot is cool and players enjoy them. I think we differ where I think once it becomes obligatory it loses that luster. Everything obligatory should be built in and practically unmissable by both sides of the screen which magic items realistically can't without a ton of overhaul. I find it much easier just to avoid the mechanic of blanket weapon immunity. It's just extra HP with more hassle.

*Eventually I'll actually get all my work in progress into one place and into a single document. Something I've played with on this is conditional immunity where combos of damage forms can override or shut it down. Think the trolls for generation just a little bit more interactive. I realize things like displacer bees (not a typo.fear the swarm) or phase spiders are just better because they have something players can actively engage with. This allows players who want to be more thoughtful in approach to be rewarded while allowing those who want to brute force to not be left out, even if it might be more costly.*

[Pex]

I'm a forever DM. I can and do change things to better fit what I and my table want. RAW only, by the book thinking is the source of all these problems.

If you want different games, DM them.

Try being a player for awhile. Understand what it's like not being in charge of everything and have to experience the game at the whims of a DM who never lets you enjoy the game as you fashion. As for me, I don't need a different game because I already and only play with DMs who don't fear me enjoying the game as I fashion.

I also DM and absolutely will provide for magic items the players will like when I'm ready to hand out magic items. I run a mix of homebrew and modules adapted to my homebrew world. When I run modules I don't hand out all magic items printed, partially because the modules handout too many and partially they're too powerful for the power level I want for the game. DMs are supposed to do that sort of thing. I run my game, not the module. However, it's still not mutually exclusive. Not giving out everything a modules says is not the same thing as never giving out magic items at all nor never giving out magic items players would like.

[da newt]

"This is very true but earlier i pointed out how uncommon that immunity to non-magical weapon damages actually is."

Fair, but resistance to non-magic BPS is pretty common once you get up in level (only thing more common is poison resistance/immunity), and yes you can pay a craftsman (assuming you can find one and have the coin) to silver your mundane weapon which will get around some resistances (but I'm not sure of % there).



For reference: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612317-Resistances-Immunities-and-Vulnerabilities-of-Monsters-in-MM-Volo-s-and-MToF

[stoutstien]

"This is very true but earlier i pointed out how uncommon that immunity to non-magical weapon damages actually is."

Fair, but resistance to non-magic BPS is pretty common once you get up in level (only thing more common is poison resistance/immunity), and yes you can pay a craftsman (assuming you can find one and have the coin) to silver your mundane weapon which will get around some resistances (but I'm not sure of % there).



For reference: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612317-Resistances-Immunities-and-Vulnerabilities-of-Monsters-in-MM-Volo-s-and-MToF

Take that and cross reference it by CR. 5e is generally not a system where you constantly fight single targets roughly equal to party value. If you do then a magical weapons is the last of the DM's concerned. For example eliminate CR 20+ from the list or single types (demons, swarms, conditional immunity) and look again.
It's a great resource but you got to consider stat block bloat/noise in the fact that you unless you are completely running a kitchen sink game you're not going to be seeing the vast majority of those NPCs.

[Pex]

I think you're referring to what I said? ...If so, that's not what I said.

What I said was the vast majority of weapons that actually change gameplay (not simply +1 or +2; My go to so far has been Sun Blade), are axes and swords - Great Weapons at best? Not Polearms. The point I was actually making is that if magical weapon drops are randomised, it nerfs loot-based Feats, particularly Polearm Master, because there aren't really any good magical Polearms. The vast majority of good Polearms are (Quarter)Staffs, and most (all?) are only attunable by Spellcasters. If you are going to meta-game random loot rolls; Polearm Master ain't it. That was my point.

My point wasn't "Don't play martials", my point was "Don't take loot-specific Feats...And if you are going to lean into specific loot; Polearm Master might be the worst one to take because Polearms don't come up."

Funny how PCs who take loot specific feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter don't have any problems. Even warriors who choose weapon and shield and take Dueling as their fighting style don't have any problems. They even get magic shields sometimes regardless if they take Shield Master feat or not. It's not the game's fault if a PC with Pole Arm Master never gets a magic weapon suitable for the feat. It's not the player's fault. He's not playing the game wrong for having taken the feat.

Edit: I will amend to say it is the game's fault there aren't specifically named magic halberds and glaives as exists for other weapons like flame tongue, mace of disruption, giant slayer, vorpal blade, etc. It would have been nice for halberds and glaives to be given prominent magic weapons printed words on paper. Even accepting the DMG not having them surely Xanathar or Tasha should have had some. Shame on the game there. I still maintain it's on the DM for a PC with that feat never to have a magic weapon suitable for the feat.

[Cheesegear]

Funny how PCs who take loot specific feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter don't have any problems. Even warriors who choose weapon and shield and take Dueling as their fighting style don't have any problems. They even get magic shields sometimes regardless if they take Shield Master feat or not. It's not the game's fault if a PC with Pole Arm Master never gets a magic weapon suitable for the feat. It's not the player's fault...

As I said in my original argument. Considering that Polearm Master is really, really, really good, the fact that some optimisers playing at a random loot table, wont take Polearm Master, because then they wont get the random loot, and that potentially removes Polearm Master from the game? ...The Forever DM-part of my brain says that's a feature, not a bug.

Now a character that "only" has Great Weapon Master, has to get attacked by the creature approaching them. Oh nooo, as DM I feel so awful that this is happening...Ahh...Oooh....

Now that Polearm Master wont get taken, the Sentinel combo is gone too. Oh noo, ahh...Ohh...What will I dooo...As DM my life is ruined because my players will feel that Polearm Master + Sentinel is suboptimal because they'll lose out on some of the best loot...Ahh it hurts so bad....

Obviously I'm not even joking really. If my players aren't taking Polearm Master, that's a good thing. I didn't even ban it. I just said "Random loot, no Favourites." Cool. I didn't even realise that soft-removing Polearm Master (and basically Sentinel as well) was an option. But if that's what's happened...Awesome? :smallconfused:

The real question is, what happens when you give the Paladin with Great Weapon Master, a Holy Avenger (Shortsword)? ...They'd be so mad. :smallamused:

[Pex]

The real question is, what happens when you give the Paladin with Great Weapon Master, a Holy Avenger (Shortsword)? ...They'd be so mad. :smallamused:

Absolutely, and I would call that DM a donkey cavity too. There's no reason for the DM to have done that other than being a donkey cavity.

[stoutstien]

Absolutely, and I would call that DM a donkey cavity too. There's no reason for the DM to have done that other than being a donkey cavity.

Yes because your is the only true way in regards to the near infinitude combos between the relationship of trust, response, fairness, and responsibility that every table had.

Obviously others need to be insulted for such blasphemy.

[Unoriginal]

The real question is, what happens when you give the Paladin with Great Weapon Master, a Holy Avenger (Shortsword)? ...They'd be so mad. :smallamused:


Absolutely, and I would call that DM a donkey cavity too. There's no reason for the DM to have done that other than being a donkey cavity.

Does the Holy Avenger Shortsword only exist to be given to the Paladin?

[Theodoxus]

Does the Holy Avenger Shortsword only exist to be given to the Paladin?

Not only that, but don't people cycle weapon groups? Or maybe every dungeon is in perfect 10' wide, 15' high corridors, where halberds have no problems. Outside of a staff wielding monk who didn't even stoop to using the occasional short bow I played once, I've never been sold on "This is my weapon, there are many like it, but this is mine" concept. If I was playing a PAM Paladin with a halberd, if a HASS dropped, I'd be stoked. I'd sell my trusty backup longsword and sling that bad boy on my hip, for use when halberd swinging isn't optimal.

[da newt]

The real question is, what happens when you give the Paladin with Great Weapon Master, a Holy Avenger (Shortsword)? ...They'd be so mad.

- If the DM chooses to make the holy avenger a short sword because the paladin is a GWM, then yeah - that DM is acting like a schmuck.


Does the Holy Avenger Shortsword only exist to be given to the Paladin?

- Yes, only paladins can attune to the holy avenger. Or do you mean is there no overriding narrative reason why the legendary sword exists and why it is specifically just a wee sword (formerly gifted via divine intervention to the legendary sprite paladin Sir Smitesalott of the Gilded Glade)?

[Psyren]

The real question is, what happens when you give the Paladin with Great Weapon Master, a Holy Avenger (Shortsword)? ...They'd be so mad. :smallamused:

Sounds like a quest hook to me. "You, paladin, are the champion of this Age who must stand against great evil, just as my previous bearer did in theirs; go forth and find the master smith who can reforge me into the form that will enable you to fulfill your destiny."

[Pex]

Yes because your is the only true way in regards to the near infinitude combos between the relationship of trust, response, fairness, and responsibility that every table had.

Obviously others need to be insulted for such blasphemy.

Naturally.

Seriously, a PC Variant Human chose Great Weapon Master as his feat using a great sword for the entirety of the campaign level 1 to 17 when finally presented with a holy avenger, it is a cruel DM to have it be a short sword. I stand by that statement. I do not apologize. I shout it from the top of mountains for the whole world to hear.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The real question is, what happens when you give the Paladin with Great Weapon Master, a Holy Avenger (Shortsword)? ...They'd be so mad. :smallamused:

If the DM did that entirely and intentionally because they wanted to thwart the GWM feat, in a situation where a Greatsword made as much fictional sense, then yeah, I'd consider that an antagonistic DM action[1]. For instance, if they went on a quest to reforge a HA once wielded by a Goliath who didn't use a shield and was known for being strong, and they did all the things and then the smith said "yeah, I know you like greatswords but I'm going to reforge it as a shortsword just because", I'd not be so happy.

However, if they just found a HA in a tomb somewhere? That's well within the normal variation.

[1] not the action of an antagonistic DM, that's different. You can have an otherwise good DM do something annoying or even antagonistic and still not be antagonistic themselves, just like you can have antagonistic DMs do good things. This isn't 3e paladins.

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

As I see it, the more specialized[1.5] of a build you bring to the table[2], the more it is incumbent on you to have a very frank OOC conversation about how well that will work. If you (generic) don't want to have those conversations, bring a generalist even if it means sacrificing some potential power. If you've had the conversation and the DM says "sorry, I'm doing straight rolled loot, including rolling for weapon type on the generic ones," and you bring your PAM or CBE specialist, I don't see the justification in getting mad about loot not being tailored to you. You knew what was happening before you signed the contract (metaphorically). And if you didn't ask? Yeah, that's on you[3]. The DM doesn't have the burden (in addition to all the other burdens) of reading minds and figuring out what people will care about; the individual has the responsibility to voice concerns ahead of time.

[1.5] and not just loot-specialized. If you bring an illusion heavy character, have a talk about how well illusions will work. If you're built around doing tricks on terrain, ask about that. Etc. Any kind of "if I don't have this, my character suddenly feels bad to play" decision should be discussed OOC ahead of time so everyone's aligned on it.

[2] Which is another thing that I, personally, dislike--the idea that you build a character ahead of time, without reference to the campaign, and then play that "build". For me the order goes world -> campaign -> party -> character. Until I know have discussed the world, the campaign precis, and what everyone else is thinking of, I'm not going to fixate on any single character. And even then, how they evolve will depend on what happens. But YMMV.

[3] The DM may be generous and decide, once you bring it up, to modify things. Especially if they didn't have a firm rule already. That's their prerogative, not an obligation. Things like that are supposed to be discussed at session 0 (or before, in initial campaign advertisement).

[Psyren]

[2] Which is another thing that I, personally, dislike--the idea that you build a character ahead of time, without reference to the campaign, and then play that "build". For me the order goes world -> campaign -> party -> character. Until I know have discussed the world, the campaign precis, and what everyone else is thinking of, I'm not going to fixate on any single character. And even then, how they evolve will depend on what happens. But YMMV.

I'm fine with World -> Character as long as the DM is open to retraining/rebuilding. Learning about the world happens through play, which necessitates that I have a character of some kind to experience it through, and so I don't want to be punished for the less informed choices I made earlier in the campaign if those choices are rendered obsolete through no fault of my own. If I instead have to internalize an entire world bible or almanac before I'm allowed to make a character, that's a table I'd rather just avoid.

[Unoriginal]

- Yes, only paladins can attune to the holy avenger. Or do you mean is there no overriding narrative reason why the legendary sword exists and why it is specifically just a wee sword (formerly gifted via divine intervention to the legendary sprite paladin Sir Smitesalott of the Gilded Glade)?

I mean mostly the latter, though I wouldn't put it that way.

It's not a question of "overriding narrative" as much as "narrative of the weapon existing".

If the Great Weapon Master Paladin is petitioning the temple of a Trickery god for the Holy Avenger they have been entrusted with, is the Paladin going to be mad it is a shortsword?

If the GWM Paladin fighting to defend the tomb of a famous sword-and-shield-using Paladin against besieging undead, are they going to be mad the Holy Avenger is a longsword?

What if the Paladin is a DEXadin? Must all the Holy Avengers they have a chance to acquire be rapiers or shortsword, or should they get mad if the one they come accross is a Greatsword?

What if there is no Paladin in the group? Should the weapon of the holy defender who built the dungeon to keep the portal to Gehenna closed be a magic weapon attunable by the Fighter and fitting their feat and fighting style selection?

In short, does the sword exist as a set part of the world, or is its nature mutable and will not be written until the PCs make the specifics they want/need explicit?

What about the other weapons? Should Blackrazor be a Maul if the Barbarian has GWM and Crusher? Should the Axe of the Dwarven Lords be a rapier to fit the DEX Fighter?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm fine with World -> Character as long as the DM is open to retraining/rebuilding. Learning about the world happens through play, which necessitates that I have a character of some kind to experience it through, and so I don't want to be punished for the less informed choices I made earlier in the campaign if those choices are rendered obsolete through no fault of my own. If I instead have to internalize an entire world bible or almanac before I'm allowed to make a character, that's a table I'd rather just avoid.

It's not about knowing everything, but more about theme and the basics. What races exist where. How are they perceived in the place we're starting. Are, for instance, warlocks a known thing (a DM I play with only allows warlocks of one patron and one pact for world reasons), etc. A sense of the world's constraints and established facts.

If I'm playing Curse of Strahd, I want to know about the planar effects before I bring a summon heavy character. Etc.

[Theodoxus]

If the Great Weapon Master Paladin is petitioning the temple of a Trickery god for the Holy Avenger they have been entrusted with, is the Paladin going to be mad it is a shortsword?

If the GWM Paladin fighting to defend the tomb of a famous sword-and-shield-using Paladin against besieging undead, are they going to be mad the Holy Avenger is a longsword?

What if the Paladin is a DEXadin? Must all the Holy Avengers they have a chance to acquire be rapiers or shortsword, or should they get mad if the one they come accross is a Greatsword?

What if there is no Paladin in the group? Should the weapon of the holy defender who built the dungeon to keep the portal to Gehenna closed be a magic weapon attunable by the Fighter and fitting their feat and fighting style selection?

In short, does the sword exist as a set part of the world, or is its nature mutable and will not be written until the PCs make the specifics they want/need explicit?

What about the other weapons? Should Blackrazor be a Maul if the Barbarian has GWM and Crusher? Should the Axe of the Dwarven Lords be a rapier to fit the DEX Fighter?

All of those I reply with a resounding 'maybe!'. It's wholly within the sphere and influence of the DM to be as strict or lenient on each of those points as they want to be. It will never be, and shouldn't ever be, hard coded that something is wholly and only 'thus.' Yes, even a Holy Avenger can be refluffed to allow anyone to attune to it, provided they have proficiency. I wouldn't necessarily allow a Fighter or a Barbarian to gain all the abilities afforded by a HA, but certainly the +3 Hit/Dam bonus, possibly the bonus damage to fiends and undead.

But a DM can rewrite the loot table for an encounter, either before or even on the fly. "Oh, the module says there's an Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, but Tim has the Crusher feat, and warhammers are dwarfy too, so, boom, Hammer of the Dwarvish Lords it is."

Or not. That's the fun of table top playing. And hopefully you know the kind of DM you're running with.

[Psyren]

It's not about knowing everything, but more about theme and the basics. What races exist where. How are they perceived in the place we're starting. Are, for instance, warlocks a known thing (a DM I play with only allows warlocks of one patron and one pact for world reasons), etc. A sense of the world's constraints and established facts.

If I'm playing Curse of Strahd, I want to know about the planar effects before I bring a summon heavy character. Etc.

"Theme and basics" won't be enough to tell the polearm character that they will never ever find a magic polearm though. So again, the DM should be open to character rebuilding if that ends up impacting their fun. (And it kind of makes sense too - if I find an enchanted axe, and that's my best hope of fighting Strahd, my character is probably going to practice with it and make sure axes are my specialty.)

Even with your summon build example - okay, I might be briefed by the DM that summoning isn't easy or practical in that setting, maybe even outright impossible. But is that entirely immutable, or is there perhaps a technique I can learn or an item I can find that helps cut through the interference? That's a fine character hook, so long as I don't spend 95% of the campaign unable to do the thing I had originally wanted to do without being allowed to switch gears. And if the answer to all those is a definite no, that's fine too, I got the information up front and can play something else. But none of that prevents me from having a concept in mind when I arrive at the table like the PHB tells me I should.



In short, does the sword exist as a set part of the world, or is its nature mutable and will not be written until the PCs make the specifics they want/need explicit?

What about the other weapons? Should Blackrazor be a Maul if the Barbarian has GWM and Crusher? Should the Axe of the Dwarven Lords be a rapier to fit the DEX Fighter?

1) It can be both. Yes, if I'm bequeathed a Holy Avenger from the Trickster God, it taking the form of a Shortsword is reasonable, but does that mean it has to stay a shortsword, or can I find a means of alterong it? And if not, could I instead alter myself to better use shortswords?

2) The others are narrower in focus, but those still have recourses available. In addition to the retraining/rebuilding and alteration suggestions above, there's also just using the magic weapon I found when I need to and using my default weapon at other times, or perhaps even embarking on a quest to exchange the magic weapon I found for one that I need.

[stoutstien]

Naturally.

Seriously, a PC Variant Human chose Great Weapon Master as his feat using a great sword for the entirety of the campaign level 1 to 17 when finally presented with a holy avenger, it is a cruel DM to have it be a short sword. I stand by that statement. I do not apologize. I shout it from the top of mountains for the whole world to hear.

Eh. I don't play with "builders in this regard for this very reason. They always want fair and accountability until it's not in their favor and then suddenly is all pout and disruptions about how unfair everything is because they didn't get their way in spite of prior agreements.

There is a world of different between "my hero's goal is to seek a powerful artifact to destroy the evil that blights the land" and "I took GWM and I want you to rewrite the game so it matches my choices or else I'm going to hold others fun hostage."

[Psyren]

Eh. I don't play with "builders in this regard for this very reason. They always want fair and accountability until it's not in their favor and then suddenly is all pout and disruptions about how unfair everything is because they didn't get their way in spite of prior agreements.

There is a world of different between "my hero's goal is to seek a powerful artifact to destroy the evil that blights the land" and "I took GWM and I want you to rewrite the game so it matches my choices or else I'm going to hold others fun hostage."

There is also a world of possibilities between those two extremes though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Theme and basics" won't be enough to tell the polearm character that they will never ever find a magic polearm though. So again, the DM should be open to character rebuilding if that ends up impacting their fun. (And it kind of makes sense too - if I find an enchanted axe, and that's my best hope of fighting Strahd, my character is probably going to practice with it and make sure axes are my specialty.)

Even with your summon build example - okay, I might be briefed by the DM that summoning isn't easy or practical in that setting, maybe even outright impossible. But is that entirely immutable, or is there perhaps a technique I can learn or an item I can find that helps cut through the interference? That's a fine character hook, so long as I don't spend 95% of the campaign unable to do the thing I had originally wanted to do without being allowed to switch gears. And if the answer to all those is a definite no, that's fine too, I got the information up front and can play something else. But none of that prevents me from having a concept in mind when I arrive at the table like the PHB tells me I should.


I don't expect the world, alone, to tell that. It's one of a set of successive filters. If Tabaxi don't fit the world, I'm not going to try to build a Tabaxi. If warlocks aren't a thing, I'm not going to fight to include them. The campaign is another set of filters. And no, I don't expect to warp the campaign to fit my character. If summoning is disabled, I'm not going to try to buck things and be a special snowflake by insisting on finding a way around it. World and campaign invariants are invariant and should be respected. They're way more important to me than character choice.

And personally, I don't think that the PHB is telling you that you should approach session 0 (or before) with a hard-and-fast "must play this concept" character design. When you build the character, you should have a concept. But that's the last step in the process for me, not something that happens before you know the details of the campaign, world, and party. It's something that happens after session 0. I don't want people coming to the table with hard-and-fast characters, as a DM. I want to collaborate with them on building out the character. I want us (including the party as appropriate) to discuss the characters, where we see them going, important plot, personality, and backstory elements, etc. And then and only then actually putting any of those facts onto paper.

The whole "build-centric" mentality, in my experience, has never resulted in good play experiences for me. It's a dead giveaway that a player is approaching things from a mechanics-first, fiction-can-go-hang mentality. Which is fine...but not something I personally enjoy. So someone demanding (or deciding) to play "the polearm character" is a flag (red or yellow depends on the circumstances)--they've invested everything in a mechanical gimmick. And that's a warning sign for campaigns I won't enjoy.

Again, if you want to play a character with specific needs of any kind, it's on the player to initiate an OOC conversation with the DM and possibly the table to see if those can/will be accommodated. And if the DM says no (which is his right), that's not being a jerk or antagonistic. At that point, its up to the player to decide: do I play this character knowing that my needs may or may not be met? Or do I pick a different character that doesn't have those needs or whose needs will be met.

If the DM says that they'll adjust, and then refuses later...that is antagonistic behavior. Because it's going back on something they already agreed to.



1) It can be both. Yes, if I'm bequeathed a Holy Avenger from the Trickster God, it taking the form of a Shortsword is reasonable, but does that mean it has to stay a shortsword, or can I find a means of alterong it? And if not, could I instead alter myself to better use shortswords?

2) The others are narrower in focus, but those still have recourses available. In addition to the retraining/rebuilding and alteration suggestions above, there's also just using the magic weapon I found when I need to and using my default weapon at other times, or perhaps even embarking on a quest to exchange the magic weapon I found for one that I need.

I would strongly not expect a DM to allow someone to reforge/alter a legendary magic item. Legendaries are things that should have history and weight in the worldbuilding itself, not things that can be modified to fit someone's mechanical desires. Even via a quest--that feels very strongly like "I demand that we warp the entire adventure around my feat choice." They can ask, but they shouldn't have any expectations of accommodation. Any accommodation is purely up to the table/the DM.

As for retraining, my blanket policy is "you can retcon your character however you want up to level 5. Free game. Just let me know. After that, we'll discuss what makes sense. That may involve retiring a character and bringing in a new one, which I'm (generally) fine with. I don't want to make anyone feel forced to play a character they're not enjoying." But after level 5, I'm going to be rather irked if they're doing the rebuilding solely for mechanical gain (assuming the prior one wasn't well outside the normal envelope). But then again I don't push the difficulty envelope very hard anyway, so the bounds are really stinking generous.

[Psyren]

And personally, I don't think that the PHB is telling you that you should approach session 0 (or before) with a hard-and-fast "must play this concept" character design.

I don't recall saying anything about "hard-and-fast" or "must play."



I would strongly not expect a DM to allow someone to reforge/alter a legendary magic item. Legendaries are things that should have history and weight in the worldbuilding itself, not things that can be modified to fit someone's mechanical desires. Even via a quest--that feels very strongly like "I demand that we warp the entire adventure around my feat choice." They can ask, but they shouldn't have any expectations of accommodation. Any accommodation is purely up to the table/the DM.

Asking is all that I'm... asking. And yes, that would include asking "here is the concept I'm interested in playing for this game, is that one this world can support or should I look into playing something else?" And I would expect the DM to be upfront about it if the only magical weapon I can find is a shortsword.

Where I think we differ is that the answer to that question doesn't have to be a definite "yes" or "no." It can be "maybe." And one of the possibilities for that maybe can indeed be altering an existing magic item to fit your style.



As for retraining, my blanket policy is "you can retcon your character however you want up to level 5. Free game. Just let me know. After that, we'll discuss what makes sense. That may involve retiring a character and bringing in a new one, which I'm (generally) fine with. I don't want to make anyone feel forced to play a character they're not enjoying." But after level 5, I'm going to be rather irked if they're doing the rebuilding solely for mechanical gain (assuming the prior one wasn't well outside the normal envelope). But then again I don't push the difficulty envelope very hard anyway, so the bounds are really stinking generous.

The level 5 seems pretty arbitrary to me but fine.

[JNAProductions]

I think, for respeccing a PC, it depends how big a change it is.

Going from Champion Fighter to Battlemaster or Samurai is basically no change in character. Mechanics are different, but they're still just a good warrior.
Going from one of those to Eldritch Knight is a little big of a larger in character change. If the change was happening past Tier 1, I'd generally want to make an in character justification. Maybe a magic item, or a tutor, or something like that.

I will definitely say that no one should feel obligated to play a character they're not having fun with-above all, the point of playing D&D is to have a good time. Consistency in the world can help that, with some groups, but it's secondary to the enjoyment of all players.

[Dork_Forge]

The level 5 seems pretty arbitrary to me but fine.

Not that arbitrary really, it's the shift from Tier 1 to 2 and iirc how AL also handles changing characters without losing progress.

[Pex]

Eh. I don't play with "builders in this regard for this very reason. They always want fair and accountability until it's not in their favor and then suddenly is all pout and disruptions about how unfair everything is because they didn't get their way in spite of prior agreements.

There is a world of different between "my hero's goal is to seek a powerful artifact to destroy the evil that blights the land" and "I took GWM and I want you to rewrite the game so it matches my choices or else I'm going to hold others fun hostage."

If the form of the weapon is such an important and crucial world building exercise upon the DM for the PC to be destined to wield it against the Ultimate BBEG who threatens Existence, I expect the DM at Session 0 advise the player not to take a certain feat that destroys the concept in utter futility to his world concept. At the very least I accept Psyren's compromise to allow the player to retrain what the DM finds so offensive. However, that all smacks as railroading to me of the DM forcing players to play their characters the way he wants not what they want. That is what Cheesegear does when he shouts in glee no one takes Pole Arm Master in his game because he hates the feat but instead of banning it outright he forces the players not to want it either.

I stand by my statement if the player is enjoying his concept of a paladin with a great sword there's no reason other than to be a donkey cavity for the DM to make/force/encourage/punish for not doing it the player to use a short sword when the DM is ready for a holy avenger to enter the campaign.

[False God]

Not PAM specific, but I rarely worry about getting "something else". If the DM is going to go out of their way to make my polearm fighter lose their polearm and then force them to make do with something else, I'll take that up IRL with the DM. In 5E in particular, theres rarely enough of a power bump to make me give up the weapon I prefer to use, in favor of some random loot.

As a DM, I try to give out items my players are interested in, so a PAM user will rarely have to worry about finding an item suitable for them. I'm also a big fan of "legacy weapons"(though not their specific D&D implementation) and the idea that a character has a weapon that is important and valuable to them because of the effort they've put into it. I once gave my party druid-crafted "wooden swords" that would reshape themselves into whatever weapon you wanted them to be most (Bonus action).

I wouldn't expect a DM to cater to my build mind you, but if a DM makes it unreasonably difficult to get an otherwise standard weapon with no in-world lore reasons to explain why, again, I'm going to take that up with the DM in person. I've had the unfortunate experience of DMs who just want to make a characters life difficult because they think that's "fun".

[stoutstien]

There is also a world of possibilities between those two extremes though.

True and i acknowledge them all as equally valid options.

[Psyren]

Not that arbitrary really, it's the shift from Tier 1 to 2 and iirc how AL also handles changing characters without losing progress.

"Because AL does it" is less arbitrary but not much. The reasons a player might have for altering their build early on are no less valid later, especially if they're based on something like magic item availability in the campaign that they didn't know in advance.


I think, for respeccing a PC, it depends how big a change it is.

Going from Champion Fighter to Battlemaster or Samurai is basically no change in character. Mechanics are different, but they're still just a good warrior.
Going from one of those to Eldritch Knight is a little big of a larger in character change. If the change was happening past Tier 1, I'd generally want to make an in character justification. Maybe a magic item, or a tutor, or something like that.

I will definitely say that no one should feel obligated to play a character they're not having fun with-above all, the point of playing D&D is to have a good time. Consistency in the world can help that, with some groups, but it's secondary to the enjoyment of all players.

To be clear, I wasn't even referring to something major like changing subclass, but rather to smaller swaps like feats. If PAM is no use to me because I need to use Excalibur to take down the evil lich and that has to be a longsword, I'd probably ask if I can grab something like Shield Master instead.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I could be OK with a DM giving a Holy Avenger that wasn't a greatsword if a player had GWM for a few reasons.

As has been stated the sword could fit the lore of a particular adventure.
It's very possible the player has another decent magical 2 handed weapon.
I like it when martials have some tactical decisions to make and this can include what weapon to pull out for a given encounter. Say I've got a greataxe that does extra damage vs. giants in a campaign that's heavily populated with giants and fiends; now I've got another tool in my toolbox.
The one bullet of GWM does work with any melee weapon.
A Holy Avenger greatsword on top of GWM could be OP and overshadow other characters depending on their builds; by the time you're putting in an item like this it's likely the Paly is already the top dog vs. Fighters and Barbs.

[Pex]

I could be OK with a DM giving a Holy Avenger that wasn't a greatsword if a player had GWM for a few reasons.

As has been stated the sword could fit the lore of a particular adventure.
It's very possible the player has another decent magical 2 handed weapon.
I like it when martials have some tactical decisions to make and this can include what weapon to pull out for a given encounter. Say I've got a greataxe that does extra damage vs. giants in a campaign that's heavily populated with giants and fiends; now I've got another tool in my toolbox.
The one bullet of GWM does work with any melee weapon.
A Holy Avenger greatsword on top of GWM could be OP and overshadow other characters depending on their builds; by the time you're putting in an item like this it's likely the Paly is already the top dog vs. Fighters and Barbs.

When a PC has been using Great Weapon Master since level 1 it's a poor sport of a DM to suddenly cry "overpowered" when he wants to place a holy avenger into the game at level 17. The campaign is almost over. The wizard has been casting Force Cage for four levels already. No, I don't buy this.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

When a PC has been using Great Weapon Master since level 1 it's a poor sport of a DM to suddenly cry "overpowered" when he wants to place a holy avenger into the game at level 17. The campaign is almost over. The wizard has been casting Force Cage for four levels already. No, I don't buy this.

I must have missed the part in the thread where we were talking about level 17. If that's the case, then yes it's probably more in line for higher powered items to jive with whatever build decisions have been made by characters.

Regardless, I still think my other points apply. It's entirely possible the Holy Avenger isn't necessarily the best tool in the box for all occasions there have certainly been published mods I've DMed where it wouldn't be. I don't think every item needs to be tailored to character builds, and if this is a sidearm, then it's a pretty good one, and gives the player the option to go S+B.

[sithlordnergal]

I must have missed the part in the thread where we were talking about level 17. If that's the case, then yes it's probably more in line for higher powered items to jive with whatever build decisions have been made by characters.

Regardless, I still think my other points apply. It's entirely possible the Holy Avenger isn't necessarily the best tool in the box for all occasions there have certainly been published mods I've DMed where it wouldn't be. I don't think every item needs to be tailored to character builds, and if this is a sidearm, then it's a pretty good one, and gives the player the option to go S+B.

I mean, if a player used a feat for GWM, and the DM decides to change the Holy Avenger from a Greatsword to some other weapon because of that, its a **** move on the DM's side. Plus it won't really convince a player to go S+B, they'll stick to their build. Case in point, my own DM has given the party several powerful magical items...90% aren't ever touched because none of them fit any of our builds. We tend to sell them, even if they're technically really cool, homebrew items. Why? Cause none of us have any use for said items. Doesn't matter how cool or strong you make the item, if its a hindrance to a build then its a hindrance to a build, and can be tossed.

[Kane0]

Not particularly. I either get the benefits of a good, strong feat, or I get a magic weapon that's good enough to give up said feat in order to make use of, and is thus good and strong of its own accord.

I also play at a table where retraining is an option so I could potentially just trade out PAM if said magic weapon was so good that I wouldn't revert to PAM again.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I mean, if a player used a feat for GWM, and the DM decides to change the Holy Avenger from a Greatsword to some other weapon because of that, its a **** move on the DM's side. Plus it won't really convince a player to go S+B, they'll stick to their build. Case in point, my own DM has given the party several powerful magical items...90% aren't ever touched because none of them fit any of our builds. We tend to sell them, even if they're technically really cool, homebrew items. Why? Cause none of us have any use for said items. Doesn't matter how cool or strong you make the item, if its a hindrance to a build then its a hindrance to a build, and can be tossed.

Mmm, again, I must be missing large parts of this thread, because nowhere do I read anyone talking about 'changing' a magic item to something that doesn't fit the character build. What I'm reading is a discussion of what happens if a DM either rolls an item that doesn't fit a character build or there's one in a pre-made adventure that doesn't perfectly fit a build.

Anyway, more succinctly this time: I think it provides an interesting option and decision for a martial who already has an item more suited to their character and a campaign to have a weapon that might be more niche. So in a campaign largely against giants if a GWM Paly already had massive maul that did whopping damage bonus against them the one handed Holy Avenger would be a good change of pace if some fiends came out to play.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread as there seems to be some talking past each other at this point.

[sithlordnergal]

Mmm, again, I must be missing large parts of this thread, because nowhere do I read anyone talking about 'changing' a magic item to something that doesn't fit the character build. What I'm reading is a discussion of what happens if a DM either rolls an item that doesn't fit a character build or there's one in a pre-made adventure that doesn't perfectly fit a build.

Ah, I probably should have been more clear. The first half of my reply was in response to this



A Holy Avenger greatsword on top of GWM could be OP and overshadow other characters depending on their builds; by the time you're putting in an item like this it's likely the Paly is already the top dog vs. Fighters and Barbs.

If a DM planned out a Holy Avenger Greatsword, but changed it simply because a Paladin has GWM and they're afraid of the Paladin being "OP", I'd say that's a poor DM right there. Now, if they roll up a Holy Avenger randomly, my general inclination is "Let the player choose the type of sword" or "Use a random dice roll to decide the type of sword".



Anyway, more succinctly this time: I think it provides an interesting option and decision for a martial who already has an item more suited to their character and a campaign to have a weapon that might be more niche. So in a campaign largely against giants if a GWM Paly already had massive maul that did whopping damage bonus against them the one handed Holy Avenger would be a good change of pace if some fiends came out to play.

And I honestly don't think it would get a player to change up anything, at all. Lets say I'm the Paladin with GWM and a magical maul that deals bonus damage to Giants, but we run into Fiends and have a Longsword Holy Avenger. I can assure you, I wouldn't bother with the Avenger because my Maul works with my build already, and my build has been tuned to GWM. The only reason I'd have to pick it up is if my Maul is removed somehow. Outside of that, I'd likely shrug and say sell it. Its not worth the attunement slot, and would likely never see use.

[Aimeryan]

I would strongly not expect a DM to allow someone to reforge/alter a legendary magic item. Legendaries are things that should have history and weight in the worldbuilding itself, not things that can be modified to fit someone's mechanical desires. Even via a quest--that feels very strongly like "I demand that we warp the entire adventure around my feat choice." They can ask, but they shouldn't have any expectations of accommodation. Any accommodation is purely up to the table/the DM.

As for retraining, my blanket policy is "you can retcon your character however you want up to level 5. Free game. Just let me know. After that, we'll discuss what makes sense. That may involve retiring a character and bringing in a new one, which I'm (generally) fine with. I don't want to make anyone feel forced to play a character they're not enjoying." But after level 5, I'm going to be rather irked if they're doing the rebuilding solely for mechanical gain (assuming the prior one wasn't well outside the normal envelope). But then again I don't push the difficulty envelope very hard anyway, so the bounds are really stinking generous.

A Legendary weapon of one specific type is really something the DM ought not to random, though. If the DM wants the players using this, it really seems like the one point if no other that they should tailor it in some fashion, either by story or some means - maybe the item itself is capable of this very thing; it is Legendary after all.

Arguably, perhaps Legendary weapons should not be in the player's hands unless all players have access to one they can make good use of - it creates too much resentment otherwise. In the villain's hands, has been cursed, and now has to be destroyed? Sure. Something you have to gift to a God for some plot device? Sure. It may not be the campaign goal (that could be an Artifact), but it could be an intermediate goal that creates story points.

If Legendary items are to be in the player's hands, it should probably be something any of the party can use and benefits all of the party.

---

For lower rarity, such items should be tradable or craftable. The loot should be loot; that which you can use in some form to get want you want. The rarity in question may decide how much effort and time is required to do this, with Uncommon being merely a visit to a suitable shop, Rare requiring some tracking down or a bit of a wait for a commission/offer, and Very Rare being an epic quest that in some form is enabled by the Very Rare that was dropped (maybe traded for information, help, etc.).

--------


Not particularly. I either get the benefits of a good, strong feat, or I get a magic weapon that's good enough to give up said feat in order to make use of, and is thus good and strong of its own accord.

I also play at a table where retraining is an option so I could potentially just trade out PAM if said magic weapon was so good that I wouldn't revert to PAM again.

We don't play with retraining, however, a new character is always a possibility. While I wouldn't play a martial character with a DM that was so controlling as to not allow a player to find a different magical weapon in trade, if I did and the DM provided a powerful magic weapon not suited to my build I would likely just kill off said character out of annoyance. If the magic weapon was powerful enough, and I still felt like playing a martial, maybe I would roll a different martial build to then use it. Or just once again not play a martial with such a DM.

[Theodoxus]

A Legendary weapon of one specific type is really something the DM ought not to random, though. If the DM wants the players using this, it really seems like the one point if no other that they should tailor it in some fashion, either by story or some means - maybe the item itself is capable of this very thing; it is Legendary after all.

Sure, except it's right there in Magic Item Table I, so WotC at least doesn't adhere to your opinion.

[Aimeryan]

Sure, except it's right there in Magic Item Table I, so WotC at least doesn't adhere to your opinion.

WotC provide the option; they aren't sitting at your table forcing you to use it.

[Pex]

Knowing holy avengers are typically swords, long or great, I would think it a great bonding moment between the player and DM when the player has been using pole arm master the entire campaign upon achieving a holy avenger it is a glaive or halberd. Doesn't matter what the book says. Metagame it. It's the DM thanking the player for playing all this time. Here, have your ultimate moment in the sun and defeat this Ultimate BBEG who has been plaguing the campaign. Meanwhile the other PCs will be getting their own legendary items of awesomeness leading up to the final showdown. It's what makes the game epic. It's the fulfillment of a long campaign. Why take it away from the player - here's a holy avenger dagger!

[Cheesegear]

Do players at 'Random Loot Table' tables, worry about taking abilities (usually Feats) that require specific loot?

Short answer; Absolutely.

What do you do when you receive dead loot?

You sell it. Ideally your DM will provide you with ways to mitigate dead loot:

Xanathar's has some guidelines for buying magic items. But some DMs might go against the DMG and just make a magic item shop, since that's what most people who play video games are familiar with, and is simply more expedient and less time consuming. Shopping sessions are the worst. Everyone knows.

Getting Legendary loot is a bit different, and gets very table-specific. But Level 13+ kind of just is that way, and is outside the scope of this post.

My DM doesn't really let us buy specific magic items. What do?

1. Ask your DM about retraining.
2. Ask your DM about rebuilding.
3. Intentionally have your character suffer a case of ennui and walk into the desert. Rub out the name of your character and the Feat. Replace with a new name and new Feat. Leave every single other detail as-is. Ask your DM if this is what they want - because this is what they asked for. If your DM isn't okay with Jared's multiversal twin Bared, who has exact same personality, backstory, and somehow even knows everything Jared did up until this point (You see, in this universe, the only difference is that your parents named you Bared)...Then go back to steps 1 or 2.

If I can't get the loot I want, then my build is nerfed!

Depending on the build, your DM might not even mind. In fact, when you point this out to them (and surely, you will), your DM may even go "...Huh...Happy accidents...", and then double down, because you've pointed out something that they now consider a bonus.

You might want to consider a build next time that doesn't involve specific loot...Or go back to steps 1 and 2, above.

If my DM doesn't enable me show me favourtism give me what I want, I get to make personal attacks against them.

Well, no. But, you may want to either:
a) Talk with your DM, or better,
b) Talk with the other players at the table.

Whatever else, talking to people online wont solve a problem between you, your table and your DM.



...Pretty sure that's all I've got left.

[Segev]

The solution to "random loot tables" not having what you want is to make getting what you want a priority in the game. You don't have to convince your DM to make "custom loot" for you in an otherwise-random hoard, but there's also nothing wrong with trying to commission a magic item, trying to commission an existing magic (say) sword being reforged into a spear, or researching legends of other mythic treasures which might have magic polearms for you to go looking for. The more time and effort your PC puts into finding out about magical polearms, the more likely he is to find something about them. They probably do exist. This is, of course, up to your DM, but it feels less like "special pleading" for alterations to the random loot drops when your PC is investing downtime and possibly adventure choices into learning about, hunting, or commissioning the items he wants.

[Witty Username]

And personally, I don't think that the PHB is telling you that you should approach session 0 (or before) with a hard-and-fast "must play this concept" character design. When you build the character, you should have a concept. But that's the last step in the process for me, not something that happens before you know the details of the campaign, world, and party. It's something that happens after session 0.

Isn't that in athema to class based design though? Class design is taking a commom archetype and defining a set of mechanics for it, that design doesn’t really work without an archetype to draw from.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isn't that in athema to class based design though? Class design is taking a commom archetype and defining a set of mechanics for it, that design doesn’t really work without an archetype to draw from.

No? Are you sure you quoted the right person? The world and the campaign (and the party) act as filters on the set of archetypes (the full set being what's provided by the system itself[1]). All of this happens before play. Before you actually create a hard-and-fast character. My point is that you're not expected to come to session 0 with a full character developed. You can certainly think "ok, I'd like to play something along <set of broad lines>, but let's see what will work."

And archetypes are not mechanical implementations. You can implement many archetypes in multiple ways. And "must use a polearm because it gives me extra damage" isn't an archetype at all. Archetypes precede mechanical implementations.

Now if you're developing custom classes, you need to consider the world they'll live in even more. A multi-pistol gunman/wild-west archetype is unlikely to fit in a gritty medieval world. Similarly, a high-magic Final Fantasy summoner type won't fit well in a low-magic scenario. And a necromancer isn't going to fit a "knights in shining armor" good-guy campaign. There are always archetypes. Most of which don't fit any given game world or campaign. And insisting that they must be shoehorned in is, in my mind, a sign of a problem player.

[1] I'm 100% fine with saying that some archetypes (or even most archetypes) are not supported by a game system and as such you shouldn't (for practical reasons, not moral reasons) try to include them. Class-based game systems declare "here are the supported set of archetypes. Pick from them (as filtered by the world and campaign and party)." 5e D&D never pretends to be a generic "build anything you want" system. Any assumptions to that effect are not actually supported by the system itself and are the cause of much frustration.

[Psyren]

The solution to "random loot tables" not having what you want is to make getting what you want a priority in the game. You don't have to convince your DM to make "custom loot" for you in an otherwise-random hoard, but there's also nothing wrong with trying to commission a magic item, trying to commission an existing magic (say) sword being reforged into a spear, or researching legends of other mythic treasures which might have magic polearms for you to go looking for. The more time and effort your PC puts into finding out about magical polearms, the more likely he is to find something about them. They probably do exist. This is, of course, up to your DM, but it feels less like "special pleading" for alterations to the random loot drops when your PC is investing downtime and possibly adventure choices into learning about, hunting, or commissioning the items he wants.

Exactly. For me a mismatched legendary weapon would be an opportunity to engage with the world, not an excuse to disengage from it. Either I can try to change the weapon to fit my style, or I can try to change my style to fit with the weapon.

[tchntm43]

The solution to "random loot tables" not having what you want is to make getting what you want a priority in the game. You don't have to convince your DM to make "custom loot" for you in an otherwise-random hoard, but there's also nothing wrong with trying to commission a magic item, trying to commission an existing magic (say) sword being reforged into a spear, or researching legends of other mythic treasures which might have magic polearms for you to go looking for. The more time and effort your PC puts into finding out about magical polearms, the more likely he is to find something about them. They probably do exist. This is, of course, up to your DM, but it feels less like "special pleading" for alterations to the random loot drops when your PC is investing downtime and possibly adventure choices into learning about, hunting, or commissioning the items he wants.

Yeah, this is really the best, and least antagonistic, way to respond to a situation where you've taken PAM and are getting discouraged because you don't have a magic polearm. Talk to the other players, make the case that "this is important to me", and if the DM is good they'll come up with an avenue to pursue researching the location of something that will probably end up being more interesting than a +1 weapon. It is only the case of a DM that responds "nope, it seems that nobody has ever made or heard of a magic polearm no matter how much time you research it" that I'd side against the DM.

[Pex]

Do players at 'Random Loot Table' tables, worry about taking abilities (usually Feats) that require specific loot?

Short answer; Absolutely.

What do you do when you receive dead loot?

You sell it. Ideally your DM will provide you with ways to mitigate dead loot:

Xanathar's has some guidelines for buying magic items. But some DMs might go against the DMG and just make a magic item shop, since that's what most people who play video games are familiar with, and is simply more expedient and less time consuming. Shopping sessions are the worst. Everyone knows.

Getting Legendary loot is a bit different, and gets very table-specific. But Level 13+ kind of just is that way, and is outside the scope of this post.

My DM doesn't really let us buy specific magic items. What do?

1. Ask your DM about retraining.
2. Ask your DM about rebuilding.
3. Intentionally have your character suffer a case of ennui and walk into the desert. Rub out the name of your character and the Feat. Replace with a new name and new Feat. Leave every single other detail as-is. Ask your DM if this is what they want - because this is what they asked for. If your DM isn't okay with Jared's multiversal twin Bared, who has exact same personality, backstory, and somehow even knows everything Jared did up until this point (You see, in this universe, the only difference is that your parents named you Bared)...Then go back to steps 1 or 2.

If I can't get the loot I want, then my build is nerfed!

Depending on the build, your DM might not even mind. In fact, when you point this out to them (and surely, you will), your DM may even go "...Huh...Happy accidents...", and then double down, because you've pointed out something that they now consider a bonus.

You might want to consider a build next time that doesn't involve specific loot...Or go back to steps 1 and 2, above.

If my DM doesn't enable me show me favourtism give me what I want, I get to make personal attacks against them.

Well, no. But, you may want to either:
a) Talk with your DM, or better,
b) Talk with the other players at the table.

Whatever else, talking to people online wont solve a problem between you, your table and your DM.



...Pretty sure that's all I've got left.

You give yourself away when you say the DM thinks it a bonus a player feels his character is nerfed. That is DM vs Player mentality. A DM should not be happy if a player feels his character is weak. A DM should not be making characters weak. That's not the same thing as allowing PCs be uberpowerful overlords winning D&D killing dragons in one blow.

Maybe the character really isn't weak and the DM can discuss the issue with the player. Maybe the character is weak, and the DM can help the player fix it. Maybe retraining. Maybe the DM should consider changing his own style and accept he's not absolutely perfect in every way. Maybe random loot forever lump it if you don't like it is not the best way to handle magic items in a game.

If giving a PC a magic item he would like is "favoritism", I'll be glad to accept that label. May the DM show favoritism to all his players. May all players get a magic item they would like. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. Let the DM do his job and consider what players want and what is suitable for the game. Make sure players have fun while also making sure the game does not dissolve into an unplayable mess because of too powerful or too weak stuff.

A player not getting everything he wants is not the same thing as a player never getting what they want. A player getting what he wants is not the same thing as a player getting everything he wants.

[Aimeryan]

Yeah, this is really the best, and least antagonistic, way to respond to a situation where you've taken PAM and are getting discouraged because you don't have a magic polearm. Talk to the other players, make the case that "this is important to me", and if the DM is good they'll come up with an avenue to pursue researching the location of something that will probably end up being more interesting than a +1 weapon. It is only the case of a DM that responds "nope, it seems that nobody has ever made or heard of a magic polearm no matter how much time you research it" that I'd side against the DM.

Yup. The case should be made that Uncommon magic weapons should be uncommon; easy enough to come across if you look, not impossible. Rare should be rare; not easily came across, but not too difficult with a bit of effort and time. Very Rare should be very rare; you are going to have to go out of your way most likely, but for a high level adventurer party it should be within their capability without too much distraction. A DM that treats Uncommon magic weapons like finding Rhodium deposits is seeming completely ignoring those tags and should not be the default - it is definitely something that should come up in session zero.

The only real issue I see is with Legendary weapons; they aren't quite DM purview that Artifact ones are, but they are still unlikely to even come up in campaigns unless the campaign is dedicated to one. What happens if one drops, is decided randomly, and the party cannot use it?

For example, say you have a party consisting of a Swashbuckler Rogue, a Moon Druid, a Divination Wizard, and an Undead Warlock. A reasonable party, by my measure. The DM rolls for the Legendary weapon, because as Theodoxus helpfully pointed out there is a random table for doing so and that makes total sense, and you get a Blackrazor; a Legendary Greatsword. Excellent, so who is using it? The Rogue? No; its not a finesse or ranged weapon. The Moon Druid? No, obviously. The Wizard? No. The Warlock? Maybe if they were a Hexblade with the right invocations, but no. Simply put, no one can use this, and it isn't even because of Feats.

So, if you are with a DM that says it cannot be traded or changed in anyway, can you at least sell it for a good chunk and buy Very Rare weapons or something instead? But, if this DM makes getting even Uncommon magic weapons like winning the lottery...

[stoutstien]

Yup. The case should be made that Uncommon magic weapons should be uncommon; easy enough to come across if you look, not impossible. Rare should be rare; not easily came across, but not too difficult with a bit of effort and time. Very Rare should be very rare; you are going to have to go out of your way most likely, but for a high level adventurer party it should be within their capability without too much distraction. A DM that treats Uncommon magic weapons like finding Rhodium deposits is seeming completely ignoring those tags and should not be the default - it is definitely something that should come up in session zero.

The only real issue I see is with Legendary weapons; they aren't quite DM purview that Artifact ones are, but they are still unlikely to even come up in campaigns unless the campaign is dedicated to one. What happens if one drops, is decided randomly, and the party cannot use it?

For example, say you have a party consisting of a Swashbuckler Rogue, a Moon Druid, a Divination Wizard, and an Undead Warlock. A reasonable party, by my measure. The DM rolls for the Legendary weapon, because as Theodoxus helpfully pointed out there is a random table for doing so and that makes total sense, and you get a Blackrazor; a Legendary Greatsword. Excellent, so who is using it? The Rogue? No; its not a finesse or ranged weapon. The Moon Druid? No, obviously. The Wizard? No. The Warlock? Maybe if they were a Hexblade with the right invocations, but no. Simply put, no one can use this, and it isn't even because of Feats.

So, if you are with a DM that says it cannot be traded or changed in anyway, can you at least sell it for a good chunk and buy Very Rare weapons or something instead? But, if this DM makes getting even Uncommon magic weapons like winning the lottery...

To be fair sentient weapons are as much NPCs as they are items. Even if no one can actively wield them their powerful world building tools. The fact that it is rediscovered by a party that no one will wield it is actually awesome hook potential.

[Aimeryan]

To be fair sentient weapons are as much NPCs as they are items. Even if no one can actively wield them their powerful world building tools. The fact that it is rediscovered by a party that no one will wield it is actually awesome hook potential.

I checked out the Table Theodoxus mentioned in my DMG; it doesn't have Blackrazor on there, so that example doesn't fully work (although, if just randomly rolled Legendary weapons are the point it still does). However, there is a Hammer of Thunderbolts which does and would have the same resultant conclusion.

On your point, yeah its fine if the Legendary weapon was meant to be some plot hook, but then why is it randomly being rolled? Do you have a different plot for all the possible rolls or something? Now, maybe you make one up after the fact; sure, but then you are essentially trading it in for something (presuming there are any rewards for this plot).

Which brings me to my conclusion on the thread topic - either the DM allows the random item to be trade in, one way or another, or they don't. If the DM does, then the thread topic is not a concern. If the DM doesn't, then you end up with the possibility of random stuff being useless regardless of your Feats - so, there is an argument to be made that this is not particular to just this Feat. As such, if I was with such a DM I still wouldn't have a concern; I would just sidestep the issue altogether and not play a character so dependent on items in the first place.

[stoutstien]

I checked out the Table Theodoxus mentioned in my DMG; it doesn't have Blackrazor on there, so that example doesn't fully work (although, if just randomly rolled Legendary weapons are the point it still does). However, there is a Hammer of Thunderbolts which does and would have the same resultant conclusion.

On your point, yeah its fine if the Legendary weapon was meant to be some plot hook, but then why is it randomly being rolled? Do you have a different plot for all the possible rolls or something? Now, maybe you make one up after the fact; sure, but then you are essentially trading it in for something (presuming there are any rewards for this plot).

Which brings me to my conclusion on the thread topic - either the DM allows the random item to be trade in, one way or another, or they don't. If the DM does, then the thread topic is not a concern. If the DM doesn't, then you end up with the possibility of random stuff being useless regardless of your Feats - so, there is an argument to be made that this is not particular to just this Feat. As such, if I was with such a DM I still wouldn't have a concern; I would just sidestep the issue altogether and not play a character so dependent on items in the first place.

Depends. I tend to run very sandboxy games so a lot of my legendary artifacts are randomly distributed. They're rolled and distributed prior to play but the results are the same. The How and why something is somewhere is important to me because it allows Discovery to be a factor rather than the world somehow magically providing exactly what they need regardless of the path they take.
Could they inquire in game about rumors or Legends about location? sure but they are still lost for a reason.

I Also think PaM is crappy game design to begin with. I just rolled most of those type of feats onto the weapon table and be done with it.

[Aimeryan]

Depends. I tend to run very sandboxy games so a lot of my legendary artifacts are randomly distributed. They're rolled and distributed prior to play but the results are the same. The How and why something is somewhere is important to me because it allows Discovery to be a factor rather than the world somehow magically providing exactly what they need regardless of the path they take.
Could they inquire in game about rumors or Legends about location? sure but they are still lost for a reason.

I Also think PaM is crappy game design to begin with. I just rolled most of those type of feats onto the weapon table and be done with it.

As long as they cover the option space and the players are able to target them, I don't see a problem with that. If I want a Legendary Polearm and I go on a quest for one, sure -the other players can progress theirs at the same time. If this is not possible then there could be a problem, since otherwise the players may just decide 'I've got mine; I'm good Jack' when presented with starting another 10 session-long quest to get one player a Legendary weapon.

I'm not sure that really counts as random rolled in the same practical way, though.

[stoutstien]

As long as they cover the option space and the players are able to target them, I don't see a problem with that. If I want a Legendary Polearm and I go on a quest for one, sure -the other players can progress theirs at the same time. If this is not possible then there could be a problem, since otherwise the players may just decide 'I've got mine; I'm good Jack' when presented with starting another 10 session-long quest to get one player a Legendary weapon.

I'm not sure that really counts as random rolled in the same practical way, though.

That's one of the strong points of sandbox layout. Goals and challenges transcend session and other meta factors so the party can decide what's worth the effort and when it's a valid stretch goal. I know it's not for everyone but I personally hate anything that feels like a treadmill just for the sake of numbers.

[Cheesegear]

For me a mismatched legendary weapon would be an opportunity to engage with the world, not an excuse to disengage from it.

Well said.


Either I can try to change the weapon to fit my style, or I can try to change my style to fit with the weapon.

Also, well said.


You give yourself away when you say the DM thinks it a bonus a player feels his character is nerfed. That is DM vs Player mentality.

At this point we're going around in circles.

I think (non-relevant) random loot is more fair because the DM doesn't really get to choose who in the party becomes most powerful, the fastest. The DM rolls loot, and the party can decide who it's for. If the party doesn't want the item, they can sell it, and use the gold gained to attain an item of their choice (within reason). The DM plays no favorites. Here is an item. It's not particularly for anyone, it's just there. Do what you want. If you get lucky, that's amazing. If you don't...Well, you don't get Instant Gratification, and there's something to be said for that. But "being unlucky" - at least in regards to loot drops - isn't the end of the world (or even your character).

Oh yeah? Well I don't like random loot because then I don't become powerful, fast. My funhaving is predicated on my character being as powerful as I can be. But, if I'm as powerful as I can be, then it's only fair that other players have what they want, too. And that makes our party extremely powerful, or, at least as powerful as we can be, because we all have the things we want. Random loot ultimately prevents power gaming, and that's why it's bad, because I want my character to not just be mechanically strong (e.g; Polearm Master + Sentinel). I want my character to be as mechanically strong as possible*...Especially against Spirits and Demons at Level 13+.
*Fair. But why?


A player getting what he wants is not the same thing as a player getting everything he wants.

...Why?
Give me a Frost Brand Glaive. Or you're an a**hole and I quit.
That's an odd way to put that. But I don't want you quitting. So sure...Here's a Frost Brand Glaive... Even though Glaives can't be frost branded. I'll change the rules literally just for you, this once. I guess. It does fit your character I suppose. You happy?
Thanks. I'll take some magic armour and some Winged Boots, too.
What?
If you don't give me what I want to make my character better, you're an a**hole and have "DM vs. Player" mentality. Because I want magic armour and Winged Boots otherwise my character isn't as powerful as I want them to be. It's more fun for me if my character can fly. Are you against fun?

Once a player threatens the DM, they can threaten the DM all the way down until there are no more turtles. With players like this, you should never have given the Frost Brand Glaive in the first place. You probably should've just let them leave.

The second a player made a personal attack against me because I didn't give them the exact loot they wanted, that player only has another three seconds at the table before they're asked to leave. Thankfully, every player I've ever had knows the difference between having a strong character, and having the strongest character; And they know that having the latter, doesn't matter. If you've got [Polearm Master +/- Sentinel], you're good to go.


I Also think PaM is crappy game design to begin with. I just rolled most of those type of feats onto the weapon table and be done with it.

Interesting. I'll look into this.

[Pex]

Well said.



Also, well said.



At this point we're going around in circles.

I think (non-relevant) random loot is more fair because the DM doesn't really get to choose who in the party becomes most powerful, the fastest. The DM rolls loot, and the party can decide who it's for. If the party doesn't want the item, they can sell it, and use the gold gained to attain an item of their choice (within reason). The DM plays no favorites. Here is an item. It's not particularly for anyone, it's just there. Do what you want. If you get lucky, that's amazing. If you don't...Well, you don't get Instant Gratification, and there's something to be said for that. But "being unlucky" - at least in regards to loot drops - isn't the end of the world (or even your character).

Oh yeah? Well I don't like random loot because then I don't become powerful, fast. My funhaving is predicated on my character being as powerful as I can be. But, if I'm as powerful as I can be, then it's only fair that other players have what they want, too. And that makes our party extremely powerful, or, at least as powerful as we can be, because we all have the things we want. Random loot ultimately prevents power gaming, and that's why it's bad, because I want my character to not just be mechanically strong (e.g; Polearm Master + Sentinel). I want my character to be as mechanically strong as possible*...Especially against Spirits and Demons at Level 13+.
*Fair. But why?



...Why?
Give me a Frost Brand Glaive. Or you're an a**hole and I quit.
That's an odd way to put that. But I don't want you quitting. So sure...Here's a Frost Brand Glaive... Even though Glaives can't be frost branded. I'll change the rules literally just for you, this once. I guess. It does fit your character I suppose. You happy?
Thanks. I'll take some magic armour and some Winged Boots, too.
What?
If you don't give me what I want to make my character better, you're an a**hole and have "DM vs. Player" mentality. Because I want magic armour and Winged Boots otherwise my character isn't as powerful as I want them to be. It's more fun for me if my character can fly. Are you against fun?

Once a player threatens the DM, they can threaten the DM all the way down until there are no more turtles. With players like this, you should never have given the Frost Brand Glaive in the first place. You probably should've just let them leave.

The second a player made a personal attack against me because I didn't give them the exact loot they wanted, that player only has another three seconds at the table before they're asked to leave. Thankfully, every player I've ever had knows the difference between having a strong character, and having the strongest character; And they know that having the latter, doesn't matter. If you've got [Polearm Master +/- Sentinel], you're good to go.



Interesting. I'll look into this.

This is your problem. You keep equalizing a player getting something he would like as wanting to be powerful. The first error is presuming the motive of a player wanting something he would enjoy means he wants to be powerful. The second error is presuming wanting to be powerful is awful gameplay. The third error is presuming a character who is powerful is an awful game. The fourth error is presuming a player getting something he would like is a player demanding the DM give him a specific item or else. The fifth error is insisting a DM must be neutral and must never give players what they want.

I have repeatedly said it's the DM's choice when to give out magic items, the power level of those items, how the players acquire the magic items, and the form the magic items take. Where I take umbrage is the insistence the DM must never choose on purpose to give an item a player would like to have in the form the player would like in case of a magic weapon. It is the DM's job to provide for a fun game. A player getting a magic item he would like is part of that fun when the DM is ready to allow for magic items in the game. It does not hurt the DM when a PC has such an item. The DM can provide for it in any way he sees fit from the PC can buy it in aisle three at Magic Mart to found in the treasure hoard of the defeated BBEG to a reward from the grateful Patron for saving his child/spouse/city to a treasure map/grand quest of epic story.

All the PCs can have a magic item they would like, not just one PC and certainly not only the PC with Pole Arm Master. They do not have to each get the item at the same time or even the same adventure or even the same level.

[Cheesegear]

This is your problem. You keep equalizing a player getting something he would like as wanting to be powerful.

Okay. One last time.

Argument. Random loot shows no favorites. The DM gives random loot to the party, and it's the party, as a group, who decides who gets what loot. It's kind of out of the DM's hands - that's why it's good. When the party feels like one player is falling behind, they can pool resources (i.e; Gold) as a group and help that player/character out. I believe that this builds teamwork and emphasises the cooperational aspect of D&D.

Rebuttal. My character build kind of requires that you show me favoritism. I want to be outside the party and have specific loot overtly just for me.

The rebuttal is actually causing the problem the argument is trying to address. That's why a "Random Loot DM" (e.g; Myself) isn't swayed by that rebuttal. Depending on your build they might even consider it a good thing that you don't get exactly what you want. OooooOoooohhh....The rebuttal is now actually another reason for the argument to be made. Depending on your build; The rebuttal made the argument stronger. How 'bout that!?


The second error is presuming wanting to be powerful is awful gameplay.

I never said that. At worst, I may have implied the question "Why is feeling the most powerful (in fictional game of make-pretend) the only way you can have fun?" ...Which is literally a can of worms waiting to be opened because sometimes the player themselves doesn't even know why.


The third error is presuming a character who is powerful is an awful game.

I never said that either. I DM tables with nothing but powerful characters. What I don't DM is tables with nothing but the most powerful characters.

Warlocks can't use their Spell slots to fuel other class' abilities, like a Paladin's Divine Smite, or a Druid's Combat Wild Shape heal, or a Sorcerer's infinite Spell Points/Slots.
But that nerfs my Hexadin! Now I can't Divine Smite twice for free every single combat.
...Okay? I mean that's literally what the houserule is designed to address. A Hexadin is still very strong.
Sure. But not as strong. Now my fun is forever ruined.

D&D on some level is an escapist power fantasy. I know that. You know that. However, what D&D also is, is a cooperative game, so your, individual, "fun" might be less important than the group's overall "fun." D&D, even before being an escapist power fantasy, is a social game before you've even sat down for the first session.


The fourth error is presuming a player getting something he would like is a player demanding the DM give him a specific item or else.

You, yourself, have said "The DM is a donkey cavity" (i.e; Made personal attacks) if you don't get what you want several times in this thread. I'm presuming the consequences because of what you have written.

I feel as though you're arguing against a projection. Not even me.


The fifth error is insisting a DM must be neutral and must never give players what they want.

I don't think I ever said that. In fact I said that if you want something really specific that either:
a) Hasn't been randomly rolled (yet), or
b) Isn't even on the random loot table and wont ever be found, ever,
That you would most likely have to buy and/or earn it. Talk to your DM and definitely talk to your other players. If you even just want a Pike +1, and it hasn't been rolled, you're gonna have to ask your group's permission to dip into the party funds so you can just buy one, and then you would have to ask your DM about how you can go about doing that.

Then, If you want a Sun Blade Glaive, or Frost Brand Pike, or a Hammer of Thunderbolts that is really an Axe (because Slasher, I guess?)...Or an Oathbow that's a Crossbow (Crossbow Expert)...Those things are possible. But those items will be relatively unique and/or really special, and you're gonna have to convince your DM to make that happen, and/or convince your party that this is a quest/scenario that they want to go on, even though it's really just to get you - and you alone - a special weapon just for you... And then while on the adventure to get your special gear... Your character dies so it was all a waste of time (yes, that's happened). :smallyuk:
i.e; Is the group okay with the DM showing me this level of blatant favourtism and will the rest of the party go along with it?

[Pex]

Okay. One last time.

Argument. Random loot shows no favorites. The DM gives random loot to the party, and it's the party, as a group, who decides who gets what loot. It's kind of out of the DM's hands - that's why it's good. When the party feels like one player is falling behind, they can pool resources (i.e; Gold) as a group and help that player/character out. I believe that this builds teamwork and emphasises the cooperational aspect of D&D.

Rebuttal. My character build kind of requires that you show me favoritism. I want to be outside the party and have specific loot overtly just for me.

The rebuttal is actually causing the problem the argument is trying to address. That's why a "Random Loot DM" (e.g; Myself) isn't swayed by that rebuttal. Depending on your build they might even consider it a good thing that you don't get exactly what you want. OooooOoooohhh....The rebuttal is now actually another reason for the argument to be made. Depending on your build; The rebuttal made the argument stronger. How 'bout that!?

Even the DMG allows for generic Weapon +1, Weapon of Warning, Weapon +2. If rolled and the DM still refuses to have the weapon be a halberd or glaive when a PC has pole arm master, that's not random anymore. That's deliberate. It is a strike against the game there is no specific glaive or halberd magic weapons like Frost Brand, Flame Tongue, Giant Slayer, etc. That does not prevent the DM from changing the Flame Tongue to a Glaive Flame Tongue for the pole arm master player when Flame Tongue is randomly rolled in loot. The DM controls the game, not a random loot table.



I never said that. At worst, I may have implied the question "Why is feeling the most powerful (in fictional game of make-pretend) the only way you can have fun?" ...Which is literally a can of worms waiting to be opened because sometimes the player themselves doesn't even know why.

You have called it a feature that players aren't taking pole arm master because of your treasure style, a feat you do not like. You are glad you don't have to ban it.


I never said that either. I DM tables with nothing but powerful characters. What I don't DM is tables with nothing but the most powerful characters.

Warlocks can't use their Spell slots to fuel other class' abilities, like a Paladin's Divine Smite, or a Druid's Combat Wild Shape heal, or a Sorcerer's infinite Spell Points/Slots.
But that nerfs my Hexadin! Now I can't Divine Smite twice for free every single combat.
...Okay? I mean that's literally what the houserule is designed to address. A Hexadin is still very strong.
Sure. But not as strong. Now my fun is forever ruined.

D&D on some level is an escapist power fantasy. I know that. You know that. However, what D&D also is, is a cooperative game, so your, individual, "fun" might be less important than the group's overall "fun." D&D, even before being an escapist power fantasy, is a social game before you've even sat down for the first session.

Being powerful does not mean other PCs can't be as well. The DM decides the power level of the game. Still, a PC wanting to be the powerful hero is his choice. It is his character. Some people want to be Thor. Others want to be Hulk. Others are happy with Hawkeye. They're not wrong for that because you want everyone to be Coulson.


You, yourself, have said "The DM is a donkey cavity" (i.e; Made personal attacks) if you don't get what you want several times in this thread. I'm presuming the consequences because of what you have written.

I feel as though you're arguing against a projection. Not even me.

Yes, as a matter of DM philosophy. I will strive to be less . . . hyperbolic, but I will stand by my statement it is not good DMing to refuse forever to give a PC a magic item he likes when the DM is ready to hand out magic items in whatever manner the DM sees fit to hand out magic items. This is not demanding a DM give a PC a specific item or of a specific power level. The paladin does not always get a holy avenger just because he exists or else bad DM. However, when a player from level 1 to whenever the DM gives out a magic weapon enjoys fighting with a warhammer and shield with Crusher feat you don't give him a dagger +1. Using a warhammer with Crusher is the player's fun. There's no reason to deny him that fun. Don't yuck his yum. Could it be a mace +1 so Crusher is still usable? Sure, it could, but still disappoints because the player enjoys a warhammer more, and he's perfectly entitled to enjoy it more because it does 1d8 damage instead of 1d6 if that's part of the reason. Maybe the player really is happy with the mace +1 no harm no foul, but he'll still be disappointed if it was the dagger regardless and despite he faces a non-magic weapon resistant or immune creature.


I don't think I ever said that. In fact I said that if you want something really specific that either:
a) Hasn't been randomly rolled (yet), or
b) Isn't even on the random loot table and wont ever be found, ever,
That you would most likely have to buy and/or earn it. Talk to your DM and definitely talk to your other players. If you even just want a Pike +1, and it hasn't been rolled, you're gonna have to ask your group's permission to dip into the party funds so you can just buy one, and then you would have to ask your DM about how you can go about doing that.

Then, If you want a Sun Blade Glaive, or Frost Brand Pike, or a Hammer of Thunderbolts that is really an Axe (because Slasher, I guess?)...Or an Oathbow that's a Crossbow (Crossbow Expert)...Those things are possible. But those items will be relatively unique and/or really special, and you're gonna have to convince your DM to make that happen, and/or convince your party that this is a quest/scenario that they want to go on, even though it's really just to get you - and you alone - a special weapon just for you... And then while on the adventure to get your special gear... Your character dies so it was all a waste of time (yes, that's happened). :smallyuk:
i.e; Is the group okay with the DM showing me this level of blatant favourtism and will the rest of the party go along with it?

You said you roll randomly for loot. Call it I disagree with that philosophy. Random is fine, but the DM should compensate when the dice haven't been in a player's favor for awhile now. He gets the magical glaive or halberd or whatever by DM fiat at some point. I'm still not demanding it must be of a specific magical quality, only that he gets one at whatever powerful level and manner of acquisition the DM sees fit, but yes preferably at the same power level as everyone else. If the barbarian does have giant slayer, if the paladin does have sun blade, pole arm master fighter getting a +0 glaive that never gets dirty is not going to work.

[RazorChain]

Polearm Mastery is a pretty busted feat. Weaponizing your bonus actions is one of the best ways to increase your damage, and the other abilities it provides are also strong.

However, My DM hands out Magic Items mostly randomly. Rather than giving us a couple magic items that conveniently are the perfect fit for your build, we find a lot of magic items, many of which are of dubious value, and it's up to us to make the most of it.

For the record, I love this, by far the most fun I've had with magic items. Additionally, the RP of switching weapons and load-outs as you find more loot is a lot more interesting than getting the same weapon, but more magical, every time you beat a BBEG.

However, I worry that if I take a PAM, then if I ever find, say a +1 longsword, I have to choose between the sword, and my feat. I don't notice anyone else talk about this when they talk about optimization. Is it because most DMs will just give you a magic polearm, or is PAM worth skipping other magical weapons for, or is it just "white room" optimizing?

Also, assuming I don't grab PAM, what are some other ways I can utilize my bonus action? (lvl 4 paladin).

Which is why we have Ye olde magic shoppe! In my campaigns there is almost always some market for magic items in the bigger cities. I often run modules or bought adventures and they don't account for what classes are playing or the needs of the player characters. Mostly the PC's pry magic items from their enemies cold dead fingers so when I am running my own stuff then it depends on the needs of the bad guys, what they are using.