Dual Wielder vs. Polearm Master

guachi

Hero
I think the only time I'd really take or recommend taking Dual Wielder is on a fighter who had an ASI to spare at level 8 because his level 4 and 6 ASIs were enough to get a 20 in his attack stat (STR or DEX). If a player really had fun dual wielding then the feat certainly makes it a bit more useful.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CapnZapp

Legend
So, I was thinking: AC bonus aside, is there any mechanical reason to take the Dual Wielder feat instead of Polearm Master?
No, one feat is plainly better than the other.
[*][Edited, per Caliban] All of your attacks have reach.
This should go under disadvantages too. Reach is good... and also bad, since it allows enemies much greater leeway in moving around and past you. As long as they don't leave your reach, your opportunity attack isn't triggered.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
There is no denying the PAM is superior to TWF and Dual Wielding in general, but the Dual Wielding feat is there for the players who actually want a TWF character. It does add a boost to both damage and AC so it's not a useless feat.
That's not what people are saying.

We want and expect feats that are balanced against each other; roughly equal choices.

Just that they're not terrible is a very low bar. You should expect more from WotC than merely that it "is there" and "not [] useless". We do.
 

5ekyu

Hero
No, one feat is plainly better than the other.

This should go under disadvantages too. Reach is good... and also bad, since it allows enemies much greater leeway in moving around and past you. As long as they don't leave your reach, your opportunity attack isn't triggered.
Note, pam does not give reach. It can be used with quarterstaff.

Martial weapon proficiency gives you access to iirc the reach weapons (also certain pacts).

If one considers the bigger picture you could lust "requires martial weapon proficiency or equivalent to get full benefits) as a drawback for pam.

Every character can dw. No special proficiencies requred.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
No. Think your evaluation are spot on. To be honest, Dual Wielder is missing a feature to make it a good feat for a specific combat style, just like Archery has SS, Sword and Board as (had?) Shieldmaster etc.
I simply merged dual wielder and defensive duelist: take one, get both.

God knows they're both far too weak-sauce to stand alone.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
If players are playing through WotC adventures, I would wager you will find more magical 1d8 one handed weapons than polearms. That's a big deal when so many things after 5th level are resistant to non-magical weapons. If you can get your hands on a nice magical polearm, this is obviously irrelevant.

This the published WoTC adventures are short on magical polearms and hand crossbows. I see nature clerics often picking PAM though.

TWF is decent for Rogues who splash the fighter level. Then you're getting +1 AC, 2 1d8 weapons, 1d8+ dex damage in your off hand and you double your chance to sneak attack. Alot of Rogues prefer running around being semi pointless and then complain about why their damage is low though so go figure.
 
Last edited:


Zardnaar

Legend
No, one feat is plainly better than the other.

This should go under disadvantages too. Reach is good... and also bad, since it allows enemies much greater leeway in moving around and past you. As long as they don't leave your reach, your opportunity attack isn't triggered.

Not really you can go dex based with TWF. Dex > strength even with PAM and PAM gets wrecked at range while the TWF can put away a weapon and draw a bow and use it while the PAM user puts away a weapon, misses an attack and then gets to throw a single spear (or whatever) the following round.

The few TWF users I sew with the feat wander round with a single weapon drawn and they can easily draw another one or switch to a bow in the same round. Dex based battlemaster switched to a bow, action surge and granted an extra attack to the Rogue while the great weapon fighter twiddled his thumbs. I'm also really really cheap with magical polearms and play adventures by the book in terms of magic items handed out. Magical showrdswords, rapiers and daggers seem a lot more common than polearms.

I have seen 1 feral TWF build that acquired a flaming short sword and a frostbrand IIRC. Generally PAM is better but its not absolute and I use varied encounters so you will get ranged encounters roughly 1/3rd of the time (well 25-50% of the time rarely 0%).
 

bid

First Post
If you add the "correct" fighting style, the difference becomes glaring.

Advantages of Polearm Master

  • Adds your stat bonus to the "off-hand" attack.(canceled by TWF style)
  • [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.(canceled by defense style)
 

Not really. You can stack the +1 AC from Defense style with the +1 AC from Dual wielder.

Also: Gnomes and Halflings suffer disadvantage when wielding polearms.
 

Remove ads

Top