A Polearm duelist? Is it legal?

[samcifer]

The only problem I see with this approach is that the Fighting Initiate feat requires "Proficiency with a martial weapon" as a prerequisite and a sorcerer doesn't have proficiency with martial weapons. So you won't be able to start sorcerer with the dueling fighting style unless your DM gives you a break on the prerequisite. However, if you are starting at level 12 then you might be able to fit the feat in elsewhere in the build.

Then maybe PAM as the starter feat, then Fighting Initiate as my warlock 4 asi.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Why should they? If a person can make one or more, one handed attacks with a staff or spear in the first place (as their action), why couldn't a properly trained individual make an extra one handed attack? The feat describes the bonus action attack as being with the butt end to justify the lower damage but is that "fluff" or a "rule"? Mechanically, the feat grants an additional bonus action attack doing d4 damage with the weapon. Perhaps the d4 is because the follow up strike is not as powerful as the primary one? There could be many "reasons".

Anyway, D&D is a fantasy game with heroes, dragons and magic :) ... "not everyone instantly making a houserule explicitly forbidding that" comes from somebody trying to impose their conception of reality on a fantasy game and there are lots of folks out there who see no real issue with PAM applying to a couple of one handed weapons allowing the wielder a bonus action attack whether the attack is with the butt end or is just a weaker additional attack due to exceptional training.

It is a lot easier to house rule the "fluff" into allowing the feat to work as written than to just explicitly forbid it because it offends the DMs concept of reality (which doesn't really apply in a fantasy game in the first place).

I mean... to each their own? I tend to be the forever DM, and in the one 5E game that I managed to play in instead of run the DM also had the houserule. And none of my players liked the idea of it working either. At the end of the day, what works for your table is the most important part.

I'm not going to tell anyone who chooses to follow the RAW on this that their fun is bad-wrong. I also houseruled that spears could benefit from PAM since Day 1, so clearly I don't view the feat the same as WotC. And that's okay!

[1Pirate]

I mean, I have never trained as even a novice with a bo staff, but:
1) thrust with bottom of staff
2) retract
3) strike with top of staff
No twirling, no grip change, easily accomplishable in six seconds.

Moreover, it is simulating heroic fantasy combat and is nowhere near broken compared to other build options -- not sure why it needs to be held to real world standards.

Whilst I never got competitive with Bo/Quarterstaff training, I did do it for quite some time(as well as the Jo, which is a shorter version, and club sticks).

The problem with the techniques described (and others mentioned) is that they’re very difficult to do one handed without losing a large amount of force, or they require too big a field of movement to be done while also holding a shield(which is typically why you’d go dueling).

The other issue with something like the technique described is that you can do a similar attack much more easily with the butt of a sword or a club(the shorter the weapon the more easily it can be done since the opposite end doesn’t have to move as far), yet there is no “sword master” feat that let’s you perform a bonus action attack.

And that’s the same problem with “fantasy heroes can do heroic things regardless of realism” argument. If a heroic spear wielder can get enough momentum on the blunt end one-handed to be a viable extra attack, there’s no reason a heroic sword wielder couldn’t do the same thing with the hilt of their sword/club. But yet, there’s no feat for it.

[samcifer]

Whilst I never got competitive with Bo/Quarterstaff training, I did do it for quite some time(as well as the Jo, which is a shorter version, and club sticks).

The problem with the techniques described (and others mentioned) is that they’re very difficult to do one handed without losing a large amount of force, or they require too big a field of movement to be done while also holding a shield(which is typically why you’d go dueling).

The other issue with something like the technique described is that you can do a similar attack much more easily with the butt of a sword or a club(the shorter the weapon the more easily it can be done since the opposite end doesn’t have to move as far), yet there is no “sword master” feat that let’s you perform a bonus action attack.

And that’s the same problem with “fantasy heroes can do heroic things regardless of realism” argument. If a heroic spear wielder can get enough momentum on the blunt end one-handed to be a viable extra attack, there’s no reason a heroic sword wielder couldn’t do the same thing with the hilt of their sword/club. But yet, there’s no feat for it.

Also, my character will be able to throw eldritch blasts and Fireballs, so physics are negotiable. ;P

[Christew]

The problem with the techniques described (and others mentioned) is that they’re very difficult to do one handed without losing a large amount of force, or they require too big a field of movement to be done while also holding a shield(which is typically why you’d go dueling).

I don't dispute that it would be difficult or even unwieldy for the average staff user, I just find it plausible enough to not be an auto ban (especially given the devoted study/mastery that I think a feat represents).

The other issue with something like the technique described is that you can do a similar attack much more easily with the butt of a sword or a club(the shorter the weapon the more easily it can be done since the opposite end doesn’t have to move as far), yet there is no “sword master” feat that let’s you perform a bonus action attack.

Sure, but that way lies madness. 5e is an abstraction (and one that neither purports to nor attempts to offer that kind of crunchy verisimilitude). They are balancing the damage type, damage dice, damage bonus, and ac boost of different possible combinations of gear. PAM staff/shield is definitely an edge case, but hardly a concerning one mathematically.

And that’s the same problem with “fantasy heroes can do heroic things regardless of realism” argument. If a heroic spear wielder can get enough momentum on the blunt end one-handed to be a viable extra attack, there’s no reason a heroic sword wielder couldn’t do the same thing with the hilt of their sword/club. But yet, there’s no feat for it.

I mean, if you really need a feat for that specific thing then write one. The devs seem to think that feats like Slasher, et al are a better balanced way to represent sword mastery than a PAM for swords feat. Again, it's an abstraction. I don't think the understandably finite nature of the available feat list serves as a counterargument for the contention that using one's real world experiences as a benchmark for evaluating fantasy heroics is misguided.

If it bugs you, ban it at your table. But it is RAW and it doesn't bug me. Different strokes for different folks.

[Arkhios]

I don't dispute that it would be difficult or even unwieldy for the average staff user, I just find it plausible enough to not be an auto ban (especially given the devoted study/mastery that I think a feat represents).

Sure, but that way lies madness. 5e is an abstraction (and one that neither purports to nor attempts to offer that kind of crunchy verisimilitude). They are balancing the damage type, damage dice, damage bonus, and ac boost of different possible combinations of gear. PAM staff/shield is definitely an edge case, but hardly a concerning one mathematically.

For 5e being mostly an abstraction, PAM is very much an attempt to offer that exact kind of crunchy verisimilitude. A tad oxymoron design philosophy, don't you think?

Also, my character will be able to throw eldritch blasts and Fireballs, so physics are negotiable. ;P

Sure, if you think arguably plausible physics and magic are equal in any way.

[Gurgeh]

There are purely mechanical reasons to raise your eyebrow at one-handed PAM granting bonus action attacks. Most other sources of bonus action weapon attacks either have a direct cost or force the player to forgo some advantage they would otherwise have:

• Two Weapon Fighting limits your choice of weapons, forfeits your ability modifer to damage on the extra swing, and precludes the use of a shield.
• Great Weapon Master encourages you to fight two-handed for its -5/+10 benefit; the activation conditions for its bonus action swings are also more stringent.
• The Monk's Martial Arts can't be used while wearing armour; Flurry of Blows additionally requires you to spend Ki.
• The Battle Master's Quick Toss requires you to spend a superiority die whether or not the attack hits.
• Using Polearm Master with a two-handed weapon similarly requires the player to give up on using a shield, exchanging durability for damage.

The only bonus action attack I can think of that's in the same "free lunch" territory as one-handed PAM is Crossbow Expert, which is also drastically overtuned.

[Christew]

For 5e being mostly an abstraction, PAM is very much an attempt to offer that exact kind of crunchy verisimilitude. A tad oxymoron design philosophy, don't you think?

Not really. I mean, with a 2h polearm you can attack at reach with the opposite end of the weapon. I don't think PAM is even pretending at verisimilitude. I view it as a novel mechanic in exchange for specializing in a particular weapon. Imagine how it works/looks as you see fit. If you don't like it, don't use it.

[Christew]

[*]Two Weapon Fighting limits your choice of weapons, forfeits your ability modifer to damage on the extra swing, and precludes the use of a shield.

TWF is generally undertuned. 1h PAM also limits your choice of weapons pretty aggressively.

[*]Great Weapon Master encourages you to fight two-handed for its -5/+10 benefit; the activation conditions for its bonus action swings are also more stringent.

+10 vs 1d4 is a significant gap. Larger costs for larger rewards.

[*]The Monk's Martial Arts can't be used while wearing armour; Flurry of Blows additionally requires you to spend Ki.[*]The Battle Master's Quick Toss requires you to spend a superiority die whether or not the attack hits.

These are class resource abilities, so I'm not sure they really analogize to feats very well. The opportunity cost of forgoing another feat or an ASI is also a cost.

[*]Using Polearm Master with a two-handed weapon similarly requires the player to give up on using a shield, exchanging durability for damage.

By this logic, isn't 1h PAM just exchanging damage for durability?

The only bonus action attack I can think of that's in the same "free lunch" territory as one-handed PAM is Crossbow Expert, which is also drastically overtuned.

Both are extremely limiting in what weapons you can use and limit your main attack damage to a d6 (and cost an ASI). I agree they are powerful because of how significant additional attacks are in 5e, but I don't think they are free.

[sithlordnergal]

Shillelagh via Magic Initiate is gained as a Druid spell, and so uses Wisdom.

You'd need to either poach it as a Bard with Magical Secrets, or as a Tomelock.

Do keep in mind with Shillelagh, it says you can use Wisdom, but it doesn't force you to use wisdom. You can still use Strength with Shillelagh, and Hex Warrior has similar wording. So if you're a Hexblade with Shillelagh you get your pick between Wisdom, Charisma, and Strength with attacks.

[sithlordnergal]

Is shillelagh worth it? Casting shillelagh takes your bonus action in the first turn.

Your average damage from the bonus action attack from PAM is d4+2(dueling) +5 (stat) = 9.5 damage.

PAM changes the damage die for the staff from d6 to d8 - this is one extra damage - it doesn't apply to the PAM bonus action damage though it would apply to haste if cast.

Without haste - there are two attacks/round gaining +1 average damage from shillelagh - so it will take almost 5 combat rounds before the benefits of shillelagh outweigh the cost. If you spend another combat round either using the action to cast haste or a bonus action for quickened haste - the character loses one or three additional attacks on the round it is cast but gains an attack each subsequent round. However, since it takes 2 rounds to set up, it will still be round 4 or 5 before the benefit of casting shillelagh exceeds that of just using the bonus action attack in the first round.

In addition, if you use an action for anything but attacking, the benefits of the extra +1 average damage on each attack from shillelagh get pushed even farther down the road.

If the goal is to use charisma for weapon attacks to be SAD then one level of hex warlock solves this issue - as well as offering up several other benefits.

So, in my opinion, shillelagh isn't very useful for this kind of build.

I dunno...I make a lot of use of Shillelagh with that sort of build, though my build lacks Haste since it is a Paladin/Druid/Sorcerer build, with only one level of Sorcerer. My druid levels also let me take it naturally sooo, maybe its more of a benefit for that build. I also find it pretty easy to keep Shillelagh up, given that its a non-concentration spell that costs a bonus action. Not only that, but its great for if you actually can't reach an enemy in time.

And while it does equate to an average of +1 damage and doesn't apply to the bonus action damage, that +1 damage can make a difference.

[Arkhios]

Imagine how it works/looks as you see fit. If you don't like it, don't use it.

So, if I don't like one small oversight of said feat, instead of houseruling that the oversight works only when using the listed weapons two-handed, I shouldn't let players use the feat at all? Suuuure...

[JNAProductions]

Do keep in mind with Shillelagh, it says you can use Wisdom, but it doesn't force you to use wisdom. You can still use Strength with Shillelagh, and Hex Warrior has similar wording. So if you're a Hexblade with Shillelagh you get your pick between Wisdom, Charisma, and Strength with attacks.

Hm. So it is.

Neat! Thanks for informing me. :)

[Kuulvheysoon]

+10 vs 1d4 is a significant gap. Larger costs for larger rewards.

The issue isn't the small die size, and you're omitting the fact that you add your Strength modifier. +10 versus +(1d4+5) is a much smaller gap.

[Christew]

So, if I don't like one small oversight of said feat, instead of houseruling that the oversight works only when using the listed weapons two-handed, I shouldn't let players use the feat at all? Suuuure...

You keep getting snarky about things that I haven't said. "I don't like 1h PAM, I'm not going to use 1h PAM. I am still going to use 2h PAM" -- is totally consistent with what I did say. Excise/rewrite/houserule whatever portions of whatever rules you want -- it's your table.

The issue isn't the small die size, and you're omitting the fact that you add your Strength modifier. +10 versus +(1d4+5) is a much smaller gap.

To be fair, depending on which 2h weapon is being used, it is 2d6+10+STR (one hit required at -5) vs 1d6+1d4+STRx2 (two hits required). I don't think either one is incomparably better than the other. Though I'm sure one of our more math minded board members has run the numbers on it.

[Eric Diaz]

Is there a reason you would? I only trained as a novice with a Bo staff and both a 1 handed twirl (as if fending) was an attack that used both ends, as well as the far less practical but very dramatic and unexpected use of rolling it around your neck, also one handed since you initiated and caught with the same hand.

Do you guys just imagine it can only be used as a big club or something?

Was it a 4 lb bo staff*?

(*also known as "staff staff". jk)

I tried one-handing a 2 lb staff, almost hurt my wrist. There is no way a guy with a one-handed 4 lb. quaterstaff would scare me more than a guy with a dagger. Unless he was the Hulk or something.

[samcifer]

Something to consider is that being even at 5 ft. away from a prone figure imposes disadvantage to ranged attack rolls AS WRITTEN (I can't type in bold on my phone to emphasize those words), which in a real-life scenario makes no sense when you picture it. At a distance, yes, you would have disadvantage, but up close, accuracy not only does not suffer, but it would be even harder to dodge a shot, so you would likely have advantage to shoot an up-close proned target. The rules as written, however, only state that you have disadvantage on ranged weapons vs proned targets, as well as targets 5 ft. away, and that I've seen dms enforce that rule because it is considered an official ruling.

Dnd rulings don't always make sense, is my point. In the rules as written, my tactic sounds as if it would be legal.

[Keravath]

Something to consider is that being even at 5 ft. away from a prone figure imposes disadvantage to ranged attack rolls AS WRITTEN (I can't type in bold on my phone to emphasize those words), which in a real-life scenario makes no sense when you picture it. At a distance, yes, you would have disadvantage, but up close, accuracy not only does not suffer, but it would be even harder to dodge a shot, so you would likely have advantage to shoot an up-close proned target. The rules as written, however, only state that you have disadvantage on ranged weapons vs proned targets, as well as targets 5 ft. away, and that I've seen dms enforce that rule because it is considered an official ruling.

Dnd rulings don't always make sense, is my point. In the rules as written, my tactic sounds as if it would be legal.

Although there are inconsistencies in the rules. Your example isn't one of them. Ranged weapons do not have disadvantage against a prone opponent at 5'. They have a straight roll.

"PRONE
• A prone creature's only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up and thereby ends the condition.
• The creature has disadvantage on attack rolls.
• An attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the attack roll has disadvantage."

"RANGED ATTACKS IN CLOSE COMBAT
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."

If the prone creature can see you and is not incapacitated the disadvantage from using a ranged weapon and the advantage from being within 5' of a prone target cancel giving a straight roll against the prone target.

P.S. The straight roll makes sense to me in this context since although the target has a more limited ability to defend itself, it is still harder to aim a ranged weapon when someone is still waving a weapon in your face (even from the ground) and you have to aim down to hit them.

[samcifer]

Although there are inconsistencies in the rules. Your example isn't one of them. Ranged weapons do not have disadvantage against a prone opponent at 5'. They have a straight roll.

"PRONE
• A prone creature's only movement option is to crawl, unless it stands up and thereby ends the condition.
• The creature has disadvantage on attack rolls.
• An attack roll against the creature has advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, the attack roll has disadvantage."

"RANGED ATTACKS IN CLOSE COMBAT
Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated."

If the prone creature can see you and is not incapacitated the disadvantage from using a ranged weapon and the advantage from being within 5' of a prone target cancel giving a straight roll against the prone target.

P.S. The straight roll makes sense to me in this context since although the target has a more limited ability to defend itself, it is still harder to aim a ranged weapon when someone is still waving a weapon in your face (even from the ground) and you have to aim down to hit them.

Ah... yeah. In that case it makes sense.