Dual Wielder vs. Polearm Master

[jgsugden]

It does give you some flexibility in this regard, but it is not "reduced" effectiveness agaisnt high AC enemies, you are doing significantly less damage against them then you would if you took an ASI, due to both the reduced chance to hit and the reduced ability damage on a hit.

Against individual high AC foes - generally yes (luck of the dice, consistent advantage, etc... aside). However, again, I was speaking of trends across encounters and not battle with one higher AC foe. Even DMs that prefer high AC foes throw in some monsters with lower AC, and if you simulate it out like I did so many years ago, you discover the +1/+1 in combat often makes absolutely no difference in how often the enemy falls while the +5/-10 often takes an enemy down faster even when it has a lower DPR due to the high AC of the foes..

I've played around 100 characters in the past three years on numerous tables and I have only had one with a belt of giant strength, and I need to point out that requires attunement. I have had several with gauntlets of ogre power, but they don't give you a 20 and are again attunement, limiting other magic options.

That is about 2 PCs every 3 weeks - which would inherently be mostly one or two shot PCs. I'm talking about campaign PCs, not flashes in the pan. I'm specifically talking about how DMs build around the PC experience over a campaign.
If the PC is not played for at least 80 hours, it isn't really relevant to what I was discussing - and I somehow doubt you played over 8000 hours of D&D in the past 3 years.

Further if we are looking at magic items, magic heavy weapons are not common at all, so compare GWM with a non-magic greatsword against what you woudl otherwise have at the level you are going to get a belt of giant strength.

Again, you're making big assumptions around the availability of magic items that TTTEEEENNNNDDDD to not line up with my experience. In most long running campaigns, DMs note what the PCs are doing with their PCs and support it - and even when they do not, the players expect the DM will likely do so and make decisions accordingly.

That is a key point you seem to be missing from my responses - the expectation of the players often guides the decisions of how to develop PCs in ways that do not meet the reality of the game. As the players do not know they will not find a strength item, they often think through it along the lines of, "If I do get one, my ASI choice is an entire waste. If I don't but I select a feat rather than an ASI, I at least get something out of the feat. The ASI is a riskier choice."

 

[jgsugden]

There are rarely ways to get specific very rare or legendary items.

True - however not entirely relevant here.

If you run a PC with a specific design from level 1 to 20 and the DM doesn't factor the design of your PC into the campaign design - specifically in a way that allows the PC to get magic that supports their character concept - it is likely not a great game.

You may not find a specific magic polearm that you seek (as the RAW often do not allow for them to even exist under the specific rules of the DMG item description), but I can't think of a single long term campaign in the 5E era where a polearm based PC had not found some from of magical polearm (either via crafting, buying or finding) by level 6. And I've likely seen hundreds of polearm PCs by now.

 

[ECMO3]

That is about 2 PCs every 3 weeks - which would inherently be mostly one or two shot PCs. I'm talking about campaign PCs, not flashes in the pan. I'm specifically talking about how DMs build around the PC experience over a campaign.

About half of those are characters are played in campaigns. I am playing in 6 campaigns right now, 3 weekly and 3 on an infrequent basis and play in one shots on the weekend.

If the PC is not played for at least 80 hours, it isn't really relevant to what I was discussing
- and I somehow doubt you played over 8000 hours of D&D in the past 3 years.

I average about 25-30 hours of D&D a week, so about half that, 4000 hours or so, give or take.

No character is played any longer than 80 hours, because that is longer than most campaigns will take to complete. An average campaign does not last anywhere near 80 hours in my groups, only the longest 1-20 campaigns even approach that. An average campaign lasts anywhere from 5-15 weeks in 3-4 hour sessions in my main playing groups. We played SODQ begining to end in 7 4-hour sessions. We played 3 level 1-20 campaigns (Doomed Forgotten Realms, Shattered Stars, Moonshae Adventures), begining to end. DFR lasted about 80 hours, the other two were less than that. Most of the campaigns I played are level 1 to level 10-15 and do not last anywhere close to 80 hours.

Right now in the 3 weekly campaigss I am playing:

Campaign 1, Grim Hollow Lairs of Etharius: 4 hour sessions, just finished session 3, currently level 7.
Campaign 2, Dungeons of Dragonhiem: 4 hour sessions, just finished session 2, currently level 4.
Campaign 3, City of Brass Homebrew campaign: 3 hour sessions, just finished session 4, current level 4

Based on current speed of leveling the first campaign will take under 40 hours to get to level 20 (which will be admittedly faster than any of the other level 1-20 games I have played). The second campaign will take about 30 hours to get to level 13. The final campaign will take 60 hours to get to level 20. Now in the end it will probably take a bit longer than these numbers show as you start leveling slower at higher levels, but all of these campaigns will be complete in well under 80 hours of play time and most of them won't even come close to that.

Again, you're making big assumptions around the availability of magic items that TTTEEEENNNNDDDD to not line up with my experience. In most long running campaigns, DMs note what the PCs are doing with their PCs and support it - and even when they do not, the players expect the DM will likely do so and make decisions accordingly.

That is clearly different from both the campaigns I have played and those I have watched. I also think it is different from how the majority of campaigns are played.

 

[Zardnaar]

About half of those are characters are played in campaigns. I am playing in 6 campaigns right now, 3 weekly and 3 on an infrequent basis and play in one shots on the weekend.



I average about 25-30 hours of D&D a week, so about half that, 4000 hours or so, give or take.

No character is played any longer than 80 hours, because that is longer than most campaigns will take to complete. An average campaign does not last anywhere near 80 hours in my groups, only the longest 1-20 campaigns even approach that. An average campaign lasts anywhere from 5-15 weeks in 3-4 hour sessions in my main playing groups. We played SODQ begining to end in 7 4-hour sessions. We played 3 level 1-20 campaigns (Doomed Forgotten Realms, Shattered Stars, Moonshae Adventures), begining to end. DFR lasted about 80 hours, the other two were less than that. Most of the campaigns I played are level 1 to level 10-15 and do not last anywhere close to 80 hours.

Right now in the 3 weekly campaigss I am playing:

Campaign 1, Grim Hollow Lairs of Etharius: 4 hour sessions, just finished session 3, currently level 7.
Campaign 2, Dungeons of Dragonhiem: 4 hour sessions, just finished session 2, currently level 4.
Campaign 3, City of Brass Homebrew campaign: 3 hour sessions, just finished session 4, current level 4

Based on current speed of leveling the first campaign will take under 40 hours to get to level 20 (which will be admittedly faster than any of the other level 1-20 games I have played). The second campaign will take about 30 hours to get to level 13. The final campaign will take 60 hours to get to level 20. Now in the end it will probably take a bit longer than these numbers show as you start leveling slower at higher levels, but all of these campaigns will be complete in well under 80 hours of play time and most of them won't even come close to that.



That is clearly different from both the campaigns I have played and those I have watched. I also think it is different from how the majority of campaigns are played.

Think you're making way to many assumptions on your experience being typical.

1. That's very rapid levring. 1 level per session? Thought we were fast 1 level every 2-4 sessions (2s more level 1-3).

2. Magic items vary to much but if you're playing default adventures good luck with a magical polearm.

3. Personally I do not regard the power feats with magic versions of them. This means GWzm, PAM, SS. You might get a +1 version but the other players will be getting flaming weapons, sunglasses, frostbrands etc. Very lucky you'll get a +2 great weapon. Good luck on a +2 hand crossbow or bow at best +1 with ensnaring strike if you're lucky.

 

[ECMO3]

True - however not entirely relevant here.

If you run a PC with a specific design from level 1 to 20 and the DM doesn't factor the design of your PC into the campaign design - specifically in a way that allows the PC to get magic that supports their character concept - it is likely not a great game.

I love all the games I have played and I only have had one DM that did this in a campaign.

We have had one player in one of those games with GWM-PAM and he is one of the few players I have seen frustrated, perhaps because the DM did not factor that in.

This is my point though, PAM-GWM is not a good character design in most.

To turn your argument around - building a character like this, that requires a certain kind of magic will lead to a less than satisfactory experience unless the DM caters to that character's needs specifically (and IME they rarely do).

When I am the DM and I am playing with people I have not played with before I do point this out when people take PAM in particular. I tell them if that is what you want to do then do it, But I also tell them straight up that it might be difficult to get a good magic Halberd or Glaive. A lot of times this doesn't happen until level 4 because that is when it becomes apparent.

Also a lot of people play WOTC or other published adventure and a lot of DMs run those games as written.

You may not find a specific magic polearm that you seek (as the RAW often do not allow for them to even exist under the specific rules of the DMG item description), but I can't think of a single long term campaign in the 5E era where a polearm based PC had not found some from of magical polearm (either via crafting, buying or finding) by level 6. And I've likely seen hundreds of polearm PCs by now.

If you are including staffs and spears I would agree, magic staffs are about as common as swords or daggers. I have seen campaigns where PAM characters did not get magic Halberds or Glaives though, or got them much later than other characters got magic weapons and there were almost always more effective magic weapons available by the time they got them.

 

[Zardnaar]

I love all the games I have played and I only have had one DM that did this in a campaign.

We have had one player in one of those games with GWM-PAM and he is one of the few players I have seen frustrated, perhaps because the DM did not factor that in.

This is my point though, PAM-GWM is not a good character design in most.

To turn your argument around - building a character like this, that requires a certain kind of magic will lead to a less than satisfactory experience unless the DM caters to that character's needs specifically (and IME they rarely do).

When I am the DM and I am playing with people I have not played with before I do point this out when people take PAM in particular. I tell them if that is what you want to do then do it, But I also tell them straight up that it might be difficult to get a good magic Halberd or Glaive. A lot of times this doesn't happen until level 4 because that is when it becomes apparent.

Also a lot of people play WOTC or other published adventure and a lot of DMs run those games as written.



If you are counting staffs and spears I would agree, magic staffs are about as common as swords or daggers. I have seen campaigns where PAM characters did not get magic Halberds or Glaives though, or got them much later than other characters got magic weapons and there were almost always more effective magic weapons available by the time they got them.

I ways include most common magic item drops. Generally this is long/short swords, maces, daggers, shields, chain mail.

Norse and its going to spears, bows, axes, shields.

Greece is daggers, shortswords, spears, shields, breastplate/Greek ensemble.

Quick and dirty version.

 

[ECMO3]

Think you're making way to many assumptions on your experience being typical.

I have had other posts where people have told me my games are extremely fast:

Dragonlance - Anyone know of a 3rd party adventure follow on to SODQ?

My gaming group is loving SODQ, but we will likely finish in another 3-4 weeks ..... after which we are probably done with Krynn if we can't find anything else. Something that would take us to level 15 or so would be ideal.

www.enworld.org

1. That's very rapid levring. 1 level per session? Thought we were fast 1 level every 2-4 sessions (2s more level 1-3).

The first two are published adventures and in those we are not using experience and using the guidelines in the adventure on leveling.

Lairs of Etharis is a rapid fire game though. It is pretty much go into town, find monster, eliminate monster, go to next town. The RP part of that adventure is pretty small. Some DMs might tie the individual missions together with more of a homebrew cohesive environment or interconnected story and it would take more time if that was the case.

2. Magic items vary to much but if you're playing default adventures good luck with a magical polearm.

3. Personally I do not regard the power feats with magic versions of them. This means GWzm, PAM, SS. You might get a +1 version but the other players will be getting flaming weapons, sunglasses, frostbrands etc. Very lucky you'll get a +2 fgreat weapon. Good luck on a +2 hand crossbow or bow at best +1 with ensnaring strike if you're lucky.

This is kind of my point.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have had other posts where people have told me my games are extremely fast:

Dragonlance - Anyone know of a 3rd party adventure follow on to SODQ?

My gaming group is loving SODQ, but we will likely finish in another 3-4 weeks ..... after which we are probably done with Krynn if we can't find anything else. Something that would take us to level 15 or so would be ideal.

www.enworld.org

The first two are published adventures and in those we are not using experience and using the guidelines in the adventure on leveling.

Lairs of Etharis is a rapid fire game though. It is pretty much go into town, find monster, eliminate monster, go to next town. The RP part of that adventure is pretty small. Some DMs might tie the individual missions together with more of a homebrew cohesive environment or interconnected story and it would take more time if that was the case.



This is kind of my point.

I would count hand crossbows in same category as polearms. So XBE feat I woukd infor the players.

Magic bows aren't that rare.

Rapiers are also kinda rare but relative copious amounts of magical shortsword and daggers.

CoS think we hit level 7 before we found a magical greatsword. It was +1 by then think we had the Dunblane, rogue had two magical shortswords and I was packing a mace of disruption I barely use.

 

[jgsugden]

....That is clearly different from both the campaigns I have played and those I have watched. I also think it is different from how the majority of campaigns are played.

Our experiences are quite different. I just counted up the hours played from a campaign I am in (via Roll20) and we're 7tgh level and have played well over 80 hours - closer to 100. I'm very surprised that our experiences are so amazingly different given that mine are based upon a variety of game groups - game store, friend groups, younger groups, grognards, etc....

I'll leave it up to people reading these threads to decide which situation aligns more to their experience.

 

[Zardnaar]

Our experiences are quite different. I just counted up the hours played from a campaign I am in (via Roll20) and we're 7tgh level and have played well over 80 hours - closer to 100. I'm very surprised that our experiences are so amazingly different given that mine are based upon a variety of game groups - game store, friend groups, younger groups, grognards, etc....

I'll leave it up to people reading these threads to decide which situation aligns more to their experience.

I'm not sure how long it would take to get to level 7 but it's close to your number. 60-70 hours at a guess.