Balancing PAM

[Xetheral]

I didn't say that.

Then evidently I'm misinterpreting your post.

[ad_hoc]

Then evidently I'm misinterpreting your post.

Yeah, just saying that Pex' game is not the norm. Not in distribution and certainly not in power.

I think you're right about using the treasure specified in published adventures as the most common.

At any rate, the main point is that 5e is built so that tables can play without having players pick out their items (in one form or another). In fact, that is the default. I think it is one of the best aspects of 5e. It was one of the things I disliked most about 3e. I want my treasure to be treasure, not just another power on my sheet.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I don't think PAM, GWM, or Sentinel or others are "overpowered" by themselves. The problem, as is often the case in these games, is how they work stacked together.

[Angelalex242]

PAM also carries an opportunity cost...

Basically, there's no really good polearms out there, the way there's Holy Avengers and Vorpal Swords and what not.

You've got, what, trident of warnings and trident of fish command?

[Mikal]

I don't think PAM, GWM, or Sentinel or others are "overpowered" by themselves. The problem, as is often the case in these games, is how they work stacked together.

Meh. To work together requires three out of five to seven ASIs (or two it variant human)

Using anywhere from 30 to 40% of ones resources to get a good melee trick combination working isn’t unbalanced.

[microstyles]

Booo, that removes my favorite idea for sentinel, finding a way to get a flying dragon to provoke an AoO and using a whip to make them sit/fall to the ground.

Use Enlarge

Basically, there's no really good polearms out there, the way there's Holy Avengers and Vorpal Swords and what not.

You've got, what, trident of warnings and trident of fish command?

Wow not even that many, tridents aren't polearms. At a quick scan of the DMG I didn't see any, so you're stuck with generic +1/2/3, warning, and vicious weapons unless your DM counts a halberd as an axe or a glaive as a sword or something. In fact, the vast majority of DMG magic weapons are swords. That does handle a fair amount of melee styles between greatsword/longsword/rapier/scimitar/shortsword, but there's no reach weapons, crossbows, and only one bow that I saw. I guess that's just how the stock magic items are.

[Pex]

Yeah, just saying that Pex' game is not the norm. Not in distribution and certainly not in power.

I think you're right about using the treasure specified in published adventures as the most common.

At any rate, the main point is that 5e is built so that tables can play without having players pick out their items (in one form or another). In fact, that is the default. I think it is one of the best aspects of 5e. It was one of the things I disliked most about 3e. I want my treasure to be treasure, not just another power on my sheet.

It's not about "my game". There is no reason for a DM who provides for magic weapons to absolutely deny forever a magical pole arm when a PC has Pole Arm Mastery. The DM outranks all treasure tables.

[Rowan Wolf]

You could do something like they did for the Arcanis preview document and have GWM, PAM, CBE, and SS be 'styles' and only allow the use of one at a time.

[Willie the Duck]

It's not about "my game". There is no reason for a DM who provides for magic weapons to absolutely deny forever a magical pole arm when a PC has Pole Arm Mastery.

But no one was arguing for that.

The DM outranks all treasure tables.

And once again, we are back at, "yes, and...?"
I think that makes a point inside your own mind, that you simply haven't articulated for the rest of us.

You made a statement of judgment upon theoretical DMs expecting them to provide specific amounts of specific magic item ("If a player has been using a pole arm since level 1 or 4 with the feat, and he's now level 12 yet still does not have a magical pole arm, the problem is the DM is a donkey cavity."/"There is no reason to deny a paladin player a holy avenger pole arm or a fighter a giant slayer pole arm nor even a cleric a quarterstaff of disruption, given the DM would have supplied these magic weapons in their traditional form anyway."). People disagree and are kind of expecting you to back it up, and not with straw scenarios of DMs "absolutely deny[ing] forever" a magic polearm.

[Rowan Wolf]

You could do something like they did for the Arcanis preview document and have GWM, PAM, CBE, and SS be 'styles' and only allow the use of one at a time.

[stoutstien]

I don't think using magical weapon availability as amedium to balance different fighting styles is a good idea.
I think the discussion needs to be split into two different mechanical approaches Adventure League and general play should not be using the same discussion because they have two different rule sets.

[Pex]

But no one was arguing for that.



And once again, we are back at, "yes, and...?"
I think that makes a point inside your own mind, that you simply haven't articulated for the rest of us.

You made a statement of judgment upon theoretical DMs expecting them to provide specific amounts of specific magic item ("If a player has been using a pole arm since level 1 or 4 with the feat, and he's now level 12 yet still does not have a magical pole arm, the problem is the DM is a donkey cavity."/"There is no reason to deny a paladin player a holy avenger pole arm or a fighter a giant slayer pole arm nor even a cleric a quarterstaff of disruption, given the DM would have supplied these magic weapons in their traditional form anyway."). People disagree and are kind of expecting you to back it up, and not with straw scenarios of DMs "absolutely deny[ing] forever" a magic polearm.

You haven't been paying attention.

[Tanarii]

I argue it is wrong not to do that. The tables do not dictate the game to the DM. He can still use them, but if he gets "weapon +1" why would he absolutely refuse to make it a pole arm for the PC who's been using one since level 1? Same thing for something more fancy like +1d6 fire damage or glows when undead are nearby and +1d6 radiant damage against undead only when not using a table and just declared what magic weapon to provide. The DM can make a story out of it all he wants if he deems such a magical pole arm is too obscure to be found so commonly. It could be a Special Reward. It could be a Legendary Quest. Or the DM can just be nice in giving a PC a magic weapon in the form he likes when he's ready for the party to have magic weapons for the sake of being nice.

Your player entitlement is running especially strong right now.

I don't think using magical weapon availability as amedium to balance different fighting styles is a good idea.

Until 3e, it was an important consideration in D&D. And even in 3e I don't recall magic marts being a required thing, although I could be wrong about that. It's been a while.

That said, can't control the tangent a thread goes in. If folks want to argue about if players should expect to get certain magic items or not, it's gonna happen.

[Angelalex242]

In adventure league, there is no 'nice.'

There's 'you unlock' (used to be get) only the treasure the module says you get and nothing else.

Thus, for AL play, lack of magic item availability is the balance.

[Beelzebubba]

I assumed that was what was meant. Would the best wording be: "If you miss with one or more attacks that are part of an Attack action ..."?

Well, not quite, because I was thinking of still enabling a character class with a single melee attack (who never gets Extra Attack) to get a second attack. Mainly to allow a non-Fighter to use feats to become a bit more capable as a fighter, in the same way Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster allow a fighter to become a bit of a caster.

That 2nd attack is the only thing that (for example) made me consider the feat as a Druid, since they don't have access to pole-arms, and being able to occasionally land 2 hits in a round (and sometimes a third on a Reaction) would make a Shillelagh quarterstaff worthwhile beyond level 5.

It makes it a bit fidgety though, since it means making the 'extra attack if miss' only apply to Extra Attack.

After thinking about it a little more though, 'if one of your attacks misses in a turn, get a Bonus Action to do a haft strike' makes for more reliable damage, rather than potentially higher damage, and that's probably enough.

[Willie the Duck]

You haven't been paying attention.

No, I'm suggesting you step up your argumentation game, if you want to convince anyone. Or did you mean I wasn't noticing people here in this thread suggesting absolutely denying forever a magical polearm? Because you are right, I am missing it.

That 2nd attack is the only thing that (for example) made me consider the feat as a Druid, since they don't have access to pole-arms, and being able to occasionally land 2 hits in a round (and sometimes a third on a Reaction) would make a Shillelagh quarterstaff worthwhile beyond level 5.

It makes it a bit fidgety though, since it means making the 'extra attack if miss' only apply to Extra Attack.

While we are in house-rule-space, why not split the feat out into two separate entities-one for quarterstaff wielders and one for pikey-glaivey-halberdy types? Quarterstaffers can get a guaranteed bonus-action attack, since that's most of what they get out of their feat, while the guys who affix sharp bits get a only-if-first-attack-hits version, but with all the other benefits.

[ad_hoc]

No, I'm suggesting you step up your argumentation game, if you want to convince anyone. Or did you mean I wasn't noticing people here in this thread suggesting absolutely denying forever a magical polearm? Because you are right, I am missing it.

Denying is the wrong framing. But yeah, it is unlikely for a party to find a magic polearm in their travels at our table.

We have a table that we roll on for magic weapons and a polearm is about a 7% chance. So 1 in 5 or 6 campaigns. It hasn't actually happened yet but I'm sure it will make for a memorable character when it does.

I think the majority of tables just use the treasure that is specified in adventures.

[Man_Over_Game]

All in all, it's easier to assume there's not going to be any magical polearms, and if there were going to be, it would be because the DM makes an active choice in providing one.

But despite that, does that matter? When you can only attune to 3 items anyway, and you're probably the only one using Heavy Armor, you are likely to do fine without one as a PAM Fighter.

I honestly don't think it's worth considering the lack of polearms a balance concern for PAMs.

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

PAM + Sentinel is a useful tool, but it doesn't unbalance things too much, since it's likely to only be used once/twice in combat. The main issue is that PAM gives you 2 additional hits per turn using resources that don't come up often for Fighters (Reaction, Bonus Action) and GWM isn't designed for a character that can attack 3 times a round at level 4, and 4 times at level 5.

Just make GWM only work when you use the Attack Action. Very few methods allow a player to attack with a heavy weapon with a bonus action, and AoO are rare unless you have some means of forcing them, so this will only hurt niche builds (such as a feat stacking PAM Fighter). Coincidentally, this also injures Mage Slayer + GWM slightly, but Mage Slayer is probably better for faster classes anyway.

[NaughtyTiger]

In AL, it's definitely an issue.

not anymore. AL S8, you can just buy any +x weapon with treasure points.

[Pex]

Your player entitlement is running especially strong right now.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why would it be so terrible for a player to have a Nice Thing?

Denying is the wrong framing. But yeah, it is unlikely for a party to find a magic polearm in their travels at our table.

We have a table that we roll on for magic weapons and a polearm is about a 7% chance. So 1 in 5 or 6 campaigns. It hasn't actually happened yet but I'm sure it will make for a memorable character when it does.

I think the majority of tables just use the treasure that is specified in adventures.

And I'm saying a DM can and should ignore what's printed and give the Pole Arm Master player a magical Pole Arm version of whatever is there or make something up. There's no reason to deny the player, and it's a poor excuse to do so to "balance" the feat.

[ad_hoc]

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why would it be so terrible for a player to have a Nice Thing?



And I'm saying a DM can and should ignore what's printed and give the Pole Arm Master player a magical Pole Arm version of whatever is there or make something up. There's no reason to deny the player, and it's a poor excuse to do so to "balance" the feat.

It isn't denying the player.

Not allowing a Fighter to use Action Surge is denying them.

A specific magic item not showing up in the game is not a denial.

As said before, we like to treasure to be special rather than just another power gained on level up.

We had a game where the players rolled low on many treasure hoards and had to get by without many items. It was fun.

We had a game once where the Holy Avenger showed up on the 2nd session of the campaign (that was due to a campaign specific rule but it was still about 2-4% for it to come that early if I remember correctly). That was fun too.

Adapting to magic items both in play style and character growth is fun for us. Getting extra treasure by doing well in the game, either finding hoards during the adventure or just completing it (instead of running away when the monsters are too much) is fun for us.

Treasure isn't assumed, it's extra. It's a joy every time.

I would hate for anyone to deny us that fun.

[Sigreid]

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why would it be so terrible for a player to have a Nice Thing?



And I'm saying a DM can and should ignore what's printed and give the Pole Arm Master player a magical Pole Arm version of whatever is there or make something up. There's no reason to deny the player, and it's a poor excuse to do so to "balance" the feat.

As a DM I dont go out of my way to cater to the players. If a player asked, I would let them research and go try to find something specific.

[ciarannihill]

As a DM I dont go out of my way to cater to the players. If a player asked, I would let them research and go try to find something specific.

This seems like a way to make the rarity of magical polearms into the drive of a smaller character arc -- they find out about a specific artifact that meshes with their combat style, research where and when it has changed hands and finds out who (or what) owns it presently. Then there's acquiring it. Seems like a cool way to make player agency the drive for a magic item, plus when they get it finally at the end of the arc it'll mean that much more to them because of the investment they made into getting it. Seems cool, sounds fun, might steal.

[Sigreid]

Steal away. I think it's just normal DMing.

[1Pirate]

You could just stick a level minimum on the feat. Those “broken” feats will ”unbreak” around level 12-14 at the latest as monsters get more numerous, higher AC, more hit points, or any combination of the three.

[BoxANT]

it doesn't need balancing



PAM+Sentinel are only an issue if you include Tunnel Fighter (unlimited OoA), otherwise it's just 1 reaction, not game breaking.

PAM+GWM is powerful for sure, but so is Crossbow Expert + SS, and that can be done at range. But I mean, without those feats, martial classes have a hard time competing with casters at higher levels.

[stoutstien]

PAM+GWM is powerful for sure, but so is Crossbow Expert + SS, and that can be done at range. But I mean, without those feats, martial classes have a hard time competing with casters at higher levels.

Ding ding! A class shouldn't need feats to keep up with the Jones so to speak. Feats are an optional rule according to the phb.(pg 164)
But if you take them out some classes will fall behind in every aspect of the game.
One of the reasons why I think we should be able to roll aspects of the great weapon feat into any class that feels it needed. Fighter, ranger, barbarian, and pally (not needed but for consistently).
What if we just attached aspects of the polearm feat to the weapons themselves?

[Astofel]

When people say "magic polearms are rare" what I hear is "I, the DM, have arbitrarily decided that magic polearms basically don't exist so woe is you to all polearm-wielding players who just want to overcome mundane weapon resistance". Really, ingame mundane polearms aren't any rarer than mundane swords. They both exist on the main weapon table and the game assumes that players could walk into any generic equipment shop and buy either of them. Presumably the PCs aren't this shop's only customers, and they sell weapons, including polearms, to other people, and have been doing so for a while. Realistically, then, why would the ratio of mundane swords:magic swords be significantly different from that of mundane polearms:magic polearms? The only reason people think magic polearms are rare is because the 5e designers neglected to include very many of them in the DMG.

No, I'm not an entitled player, I'm pretty much a full-time DM. I just fail to see any reasons to have a polearm-wielding player be significantly behind on cool loot than his more conventional weapon-wielding buddies.

[Pex]

When people say "magic polearms are rare" what I hear is "I, the DM, have arbitrarily decided that magic polearms basically don't exist so woe is you to all polearm-wielding players who just want to overcome mundane weapon resistance". Really, ingame mundane polearms aren't any rarer than mundane swords. They both exist on the main weapon table and the game assumes that players could walk into any generic equipment shop and buy either of them. Presumably the PCs aren't this shop's only customers, and they sell weapons, including polearms, to other people, and have been doing so for a while. Realistically, then, why would the ratio of mundane swords:magic swords be significantly different from that of mundane polearms:magic polearms? The only reason people think magic polearms are rare is because the 5e designers neglected to include very many of them in the DMG.

No, I'm not an entitled player, I'm pretty much a full-time DM. I just fail to see any reasons to have a polearm-wielding player be significantly behind on cool loot than his more conventional weapon-wielding buddies.

Thank you!

Someone gets it.

[Nifft]

Ding ding! A class shouldn't need feats to keep up with the Jones so to speak. Feats are an optional rule according to the phb.(pg 164)
But if you take them out some classes will fall behind in every aspect of the game.
One of the reasons why I think we should be able to roll aspects of the great weapon feat into any class that feels it needed. Fighter, ranger, barbarian, and pally (not needed but for consistently).
What if we just attached aspects of the polearm feat to the weapons themselves?

I like this idea and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.