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

[Merudo]

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

As a player, I would prefer for DMs to run adventures as written and let me face the consequences of my own choices. If I've planned to overcome the polearm problem via e.g. Sacred Weapon, or Magic Weapon, and the DM just... hands out magical polearms that aren't supposed to be there, that would feel like inappropriate DM metagaming. "Why did I bother planning for this contingency if the DM was going to handle it for me? Who's playing this game anyway, me or them?"

Ideally, there shouldn't be feedback loops between my PC's choices and the content of the adventure, only the consequences of interacting with that content.

[Merudo]

If I've planned to overcome the polearm problem via e.g. Sacred Weapon, or Magic Weapon, and the DM just... hands out magical polearms that aren't supposed to be there, that would feel like inappropriate DM metagaming. "Why did I bother planning for this contingency if the DM was going to handle it for me? Who's playing this game anyway, me or them?"

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

[micahaphone]

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

[Mystral]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There really is no good reason for there being so many magical swords and no magical spears, halberds or glaives. Pole weapons are some of the most effective weapons possible, be it on the battlefield, when fighting enemies double your size or with unusual anatomy. So of course they should also feature heavily in enchantment.

[Gtdead]

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

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

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

[Avonar]

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

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

[EggKookoo]

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

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

[Mystral]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bunny Commando]

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

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

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

[Elbeyon]

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

[Hael]

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

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

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

Just don’t make the decision after the fact.

[diplomancer]

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

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

[EggKookoo]

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

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

[da newt]

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

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

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

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

[Grek]

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

[Gignere]

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

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

[Unoriginal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Drascin]

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

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

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

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

[RogueJK]

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

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

However...

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

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

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

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Morty]

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[micahaphone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


took a while but found
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTh...g_giant_runes/
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LDJA7FkMZwBIfz9warX


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

[stoutstien]

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

[MaxWilson]

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

Good answer. OP is asking the wrong people.

[Tanarii]

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

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