Dual Wielder vs. Polearm Master

[Blue]

One huge difference is that dual wielding can be finesse weapons. DEX is the all-star ability score, while STR is the red-headed step-child.

But really, who bothers to spend the feat on Dual Wielding? If you want to do it, such as a rogue who wants more chances to land a hit to deliver SA more reliably, you can do it without a feat. All the feat does is take away the "light" requirements, so about +1 damage per hit from increased damage die, and the +1 AC. As feats go, it doesn't give you a lot over the base.

 

[AmerginLiath]

Plan C: Hold a polearm in each hand, use your action on an Intimidation check.

 

[ad_hoc]

If you found a magic polearm then you are going to want PAM and that should be able it is.

If not, using a mundane weapon becomes a huge drawback. There are a good amount of resistant monsters and you miss out on the bonuses/riders from magic weapons.

 

[tglassy]

I have a Paladin I’ve created that is a Human Variant starting with the Dual Wielding Feat. He wields a Longsword and Battleaxe, and will likely have a Warhammer on him as well.

Taking Defense as a fighting style, he gets the Extra Attack of wielding two weapons, then also have the AC boost of a Shield (Defense fighting style and Dual Wielding). He wears heavy armor, and focuses on Str, so the only thing Dex gives is initiative, since at lvl 6 he’ll get a big boost to All saves. It basically makes Dex redundant.

So, taking into account various fighting styles, he’ll have better AC than someone with a two handed weapon plus two or three feats, and more attacks then someone with a sword and board. It also means more chances to get a Crit, and if he does get a Crit with his offhand, it would be an extra d8 instead of a d4, as with Polearm Master. Sure, I don’t add my Str to the damage of the third attack. Whatevs. That’s the only downside that I see with this.

And I have the pleasure of role playing my ax getting stuck in my enemy’s skull, letting go and stabbing the next guy with my sword, and then drawing my warhammer to smash the next skull in line, returning to my ax when the battle is over.

I think people get so focused on that one extra point of damage, the slightly better stats, that it winds up creating a thousand pole arm master sentinels with great weapon master. Everyone says Dual Wielder is crap, but I’ve never seen it that way.

And in a high magic campaign, having two magic d8 weapons can be beast. Just saying.

 

[5ekyu]

So, I was thinking: AC bonus aside, is there any mechanical reason to take the Dual Wielder feat instead of Polearm Master?

(If your response to this is "Because you want to play a dual wielder and you should only care about concept and not mechanics"... well, post that if you must, but don't expect a response, at least from me. I'm interested in mechanical balance here.)

For a character with Extra Attack, the damage dice are the same: 3d8 for Dual Wielder, 2d10+1d4 for Polearm Mastery, both averaging 13.5. However:

Advantages of Polearm Master

• Adds your stat bonus to the "off-hand" attack.
• [Edited, per Caliban] All of your attacks have reach.
• Free opportunity attack when a foe enters your reach.
• Can be used with Great Weapon Master.
• Front-loads your damage into your "main-hand" attack, so if you need to use your bonus action for something else, you don't sacrifice as much damage output.
• You only need one magic weapon to boost all of your attacks.

Advantages of Dual Wielder

• +1 AC.

Am I missing something here? I mean, I know Polearm Master is a powerhouse feat and Dual Wielder... isn't, but this seems really extreme.

i would observe that some of the listings are more preference than advantage.

One of the reason for going the "two attacks" route is for insurance if one misses. You get two shots. So, "frontloading" the damage into one is actually not a plus in that aspect - at best it is an equal to "spread damage over two attacks"" because if that first strike misses you lose out on a lot more.

Some of the other counters are more situational and campaign specific.

Dual wielding focuses on smaller, light weapons which means also in many cases they can be more easily concealed. There are a lot more cases where walking in with a glaive or pike (for the reach) will not be an easy thing to do whereas slipping in a couple daggers wont draw attention. Similarly, a Gm may very well impose penalties on glaives and other reach or heavy weapons in tight spaces under the disadvantage "Some aspect of the environment makes success less likely (assuming that aspect doesn’t already impose a penalty to the roll being made)." clause.

Obviously Some smaller races might be more invested or able to make use of the smaller weapons than the larger. "heavy" weapons making up most of the PAM list.

The only simple weapon on the PAM list is the quarterstaff which is an OK weapon for strength based characters.

All of this adds up to - DW has a lot going for it as a fighting method in terms of availability to more characters and use in more situations than PAM is.

I would see the advantages vs disadvantages as:
DW vs PAM
Both - has a BA attack (d4 for PAM, !H weapon up to d6-d8 for DW) with modifier for stat to hit and damage.
PAM - gains the option to expend reaction OA on enter reach option
DW - gains +1 AC

The "advantages" of higher damage on initial strike (due to weapon type) and reach 10' (due to weapon type) are actually advantages to having Martial weapons proficiency vs simple weapons proficiency and have nothing to do with the feat.

I think whether or not the +1 Ac for all cases when your weapons are out VS the additional opportunity to spend your reaction really boils down the difference in the feats and it will be highly circumstantial how often "enemy moves into reach" is a thing as significant as the +1 Ac vs most every attack made against you.

 

[Quartz]

If players are playing through WotC adventures, I would wager you will find more magical 1d8 one handed weapons than polearms.

There's nothing stopping the DM from changing a magic sword into a magic halberd. Maybe that magic 'dagger' is actually a magic spearpoint with a broken haft?

 

[Oofta]

There's nothing stopping the DM from changing a magic sword into a magic halberd. Maybe that magic 'dagger' is actually a magic spearpoint with a broken haft?

Unless it's an AL game. That, and a lot of DMs just hand out what the mod or random rolls give them and don't customize,

 

[Gavin O.]

Dual wielding also gives you the ability to draw two weapons at once using your "interact with an object" action, which I'd consider mandatory for characters who actually want to dual wield, since drawing your second weapon would otherwise take your action. For a class that can't use Polearm Master (notably rogues), Dual Wielding is a fine option to get a second chance at sneak attack.

 

[tglassy]

There's nothing stopping the DM from changing a magic sword into a magic halberd. Maybe that magic 'dagger' is actually a magic spearpoint with a broken haft?

Sure, but you can’t wield two of them. A Frostbrand coupled with a Flametongue, or pair any legendary weapon with a second of equal or lesser value. Sure, you may never get them, but you CANT wield two legendary weapons if you’re using polearmes.

 

[Mirtek]

Unless it's an AL game. That, and a lot of DMs just hand out what the mod or random rolls give them and don't customize,

But in AL you can just buy a +1 polearm from your faction at ~ level 10