Polearm Master in hardcover adventures - should the DM add magical polearms?

[Tanarii]

Can you rephrase that please? I think that my puzzlement was in quarterstaff ever being in polearm mastery in the first place. (I had some modest training in staff fighting years ago, and it makes my head hurt). The one-handed bit was just icing on the cake, and yet, since in that case both attacks to bludgeoning damage, there was an odd mechanical consistency.

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

A spear is the original pole arm, eh? And their should be a martial spear that does 1d8/1d10 versatile {rants and foams at the mouth as he drives off into the sunset ...}

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Sensible and consistent.

Sure as long as it didn't get Reach when used 1H, that'd be fine. Or it could be Special: This weapon has Reach 1H when used as part of a military shield wall formation.

Too fiddly for the scale of the game we are discussing - I like your idea on 'no reach when one handed, yes reach with two handed' better for the martial weapon spear I described as what is missing from the weapons table (IMO).

[Tanarii]

Sensible and consistent.
Too fiddly for the scale of the game we are discussing - I like your idea on 'no reach when one handed, yes reach with two handed' better for the martial weapon spear I described as what is missing from the weapons table (IMO).

It'd probably be fine as a 1d6 reach 1H. I'm sure there's plenty of room for abuse there with stacking bonuses to damage or some such, but as a baseline weapon it'd be consistent with the step up to Martial, or the step down from Longsword etc 1H being 1d8.

[AdAstra]

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


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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

I like that idea as well.

[MaxWilson]

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

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

A common misconception, but Bounded Accuracy actually has nothing to do with normalizing PCs' bonuses and everything to do with normalizing task DCs and monsters' numbers, according to 5E designer Rodney Thompson's post explaining the term "bounded accuracy".

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

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

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

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

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

Emphasis mine.

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

If the DM knows that for most characters a DC of 15 is a mildly difficult check, then the DM starts to associate DC values with in-world difficulties.

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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

That's highly debatable.

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

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

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

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

[Gignere]

That's highly debatable.

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

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

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

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

In other words, it's 50/50 for a specialist, and 25% for a non-specialist. Which is, as I said, something only a specialist should consider trying.

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

[EggKookoo]

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

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

[noob]

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

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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

[noob]

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

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

[Xervous]

Bounded Accuracy

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

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

[Pex]

In other words, it's 50/50 for a specialist, and 25% for a non-specialist. Which is, as I said, something only a specialist should consider trying.

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

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

Can't blame me this time.