D&D 5E Reach weapons: what's the drawback?

[Minsc]

It seems to me, in my admittedly extremely limited experience, that a weapon with Reach is extremely powerful. They keep many enemies at a distance they can't hurt you, and if an enemy without Reach wants to hit you, they provoke an Opportunity Attack.

Is that right?

 

[Jeph]

Not in 5th edition—if you want to make AoOs against enemies who close into your reach, you need the Polearm Master feat.

Also, reach weapons tend to deal 1 point less damage, on average, than two-handed swords and axes.

 

[Evhelm]

Not in 5th edition—if you want to make AoOs against enemies who close into your reach, you need the Polearm Master feat.

Also, reach weapons tend to deal 1 point less damage, on average, than two-handed swords and axes.

Exactly. Theoretically you're actually less likely to get attacks of opportunity with reach weapons since you only get them when enemies leave your threat area! (Without the feat, anyway.)

 

[Minsc]

Who would ever build a character concentrating on Pole Arms and not take this feat?

 

[Evhelm]

Who would ever build a character concentrating on Pole Arms and not take this feat?

Someone playing with only the basic rules, or who is with a DM not allowing feats, or who doesn't concentrate on pole arms but happens to use one

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And, at least until the late game, a character who chooses the feat will be at -2 to Strength compared to the obvious alternative, so you're really comparing a "free" opportunity attack to +1 to hit and +2 damage.

 

[DaveDash]

And, at least until the late game, a character who chooses the feat will be at -2 to Strength compared to the obvious alternative, so you're really comparing a "free" opportunity attack to +1 to hit and +2 damage.

If you're a human variant Fighter you can get 20 str pretty quick and still have the feat.

 

[Crothian]

Who would ever build a character concentrating on Pole Arms and not take this feat?

Feats are optional rule. The game assumes people are not using them. My group does not use feats.

 

[Paraxis]

Feats are optional rule. The game assumes people are not using them. My group does not use feats.

Yes but few people like me who build characters for a game without feats would use polearms, greatsword does more damage, and meshes with great weapon fighting style better.

So to answer "Who would ever build a character concentrating on Pole Arms and not take this feat?", someone who didn't mind doing less damage for the sake of the flavor of having a polearm, and for the few times fighting with reach is important, in a campaign that didn't allow feats. So almost no one ever.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes but few people like me who build characters for a game without feats would use polearms, greatsword does more damage, and meshes with great weapon fighting style better.

So to answer "Who would ever build a character concentrating on Pole Arms and not take this feat?", someone who didn't mind doing less damage for the sake of the flavor of having a polearm, and for the few times fighting with reach is important, in a campaign that didn't allow feats. So almost no one ever.

or people who play with tactics and have a front row fighter in the party with the pole arm fighter in the rear so both fighters can attack in confined places like a dungeon or really anywhere you fight in formation. Like we've been doing for 34 years.

but hey, keep viewing the game through dpr glasses if you want