Dual Wielder vs. Polearm Master

[FrogReaver]

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.

Then you lose mod off hand damage...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Then you lose mod off hand damage...

Not if you have a second fighting style from being a champion or multiclassing.

Not if you are not a fighter, and are duel wielding for reasons other than taking advantage of TWF.

 

[Ancalagon]

+1 to AC is a pretty big deal in 5e - although less so if your AC is middling

 

[ad_hoc]

+1 to AC is a pretty big deal in 5e - although less so if your AC is middling

Also if there are others in the party with low AC.

If your character is the last one standing you're still going to get a TPK most of the time.

 

[flametitan]

I considered the feat when I was hypothesizing a Pact of the blade Warlock multiclassed with swashbuckler (This was before the hexblade was an option, and I used the Pact of the Undying as the baseline as I am a huge fan of its flavour, even if its mechanics are lacking). Depending on how high I boosted the dex score, the swashlock was looking at an AC of about 18-19 with the feat. While she wasn't a tank, that's actually pretty good for a character focused on darting in and out of melee to make attacks. As a fan of Rapiers, the ability to dual wield while using one as a pact weapon was also a nice boon.

Is it as good as maxing out Dex? No, of course not. However, the balance point of most feats is an odd one. It's something I need to find the source of, so take it with a grain of salt. However, I remember hearing that the majority of feats are balanced around answering yes to two questions:

Is it better than upping your worst stat?
Is it worse than upping your primary stat?

In this sense, Dual Wielder hits its mark, though GWM, PAM, and SS might be out of line.

 

[ClaytonCross]

A comparison

1. Polearm Master.
a. Defensive Fighting Style
b. Strength Stat
c. 1d10+str mod damage
d. 1d4+str mod bonus action attack damage
e. Reaction attack when approached

2. Dual Wielder
a. Two Weapon Fighting Style
b. Dexterity Stat
c. 1d8+dex mod damage main hand and off hand
d. can effectively use a bow / darts / daggers for ranged damage when desired
e. higher dex score affects initiative

A few indirect benefits of polearm mastery:
1. Can be used with Great Weapon Master Feat
2. Can be used effectively by character's that don't get two weapon fighting style (aka barbarians and paladins)

Polearm Mastery is likely the stronger feat but Dual Wielding with the feat and using dex for your primary stat is just as good in not a little better IMO (unless you are using great weapon master or a character class that doesn't get to the two weapon fighting style).

Monks can use dexterity for quarterstaffs, Druids using shillelagh can use wisdom on quarterstaffs, and Warlocks can use Glaives using charisma. These all three make Polearm far better for those classes.

 

[FrogReaver]

Monks can use dexterity for quarterstaffs, Druids using shillelagh can use wisdom on quarterstaffs, and Warlocks can use Glaives using charisma. These all three make Polearm far better for those classes.

Polearm Master is crap on Monks. It's crap on druids.

At least it's useful for warlocks. Though I think I already mentioned it being effective on character's that don't get two weapon fighting (although I didn't explicitly mention warlocks at the time)

 

[FrogReaver]

+1 to AC is a pretty big deal in 5e - although less so if your AC is middling

Not to derail this thread but I got back and forth on the usefulness of +1 AC. On the one hand it can be a huge effective % damage reduction if you already have a higher AC. On the other hand it's only going to affect 1 attack out of every 20 on average. There will be many whole sessions where that +1 AC never matters.

It's rather hard to get excited about something that is going to come up so rarely IMO.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Polearm Master is crap on Monks. It's crap on druids.

At least it's useful for warlocks. Though I think I already mentioned it being effective on character's that don't get two weapon fighting (although I didn't explicitly mention warlocks at the time)

Not sure why your saying its crap, for monks and druids.

Druids
- Can use Quarter staff as a druid focus one handed with a shield (they are proficient)
- Using Shillelagh a one handed staff with Polearm Master but end attack goes from 1d6+str/1d4+str bludgeoning to 1d8+Wiz/1d8+Wiz magical bludgeoning
- A druid caster can using the staff as a focus then has 1d8+wiz magical bludgeoning opportunity attacks without when enemies leave them or approach them instead of what a 1d6+strenght which is likely a dump state for land casters or moon druids who shape shift out of their strength state.

... That's not crap to me.

Monks get a free melee attack with martial arts but its a 1d4 until 5th level, after that it goes up but it just means you have an option if you have a magical staff prior to lvl6. Granted that not a big deal, and normally its a minor lose for monks... But I have strength based monk who wears armor and has the healer feat. (I know I am crazy person to surrender martial arts and unarmored movement) There was requirement for it in a story so I did it and this feet gives me an 3rd attack I would not normally get. Not as good as others but its still useful.

I am guessing you don't like these due to the lack of reach but reach also allows enemies to maneuver more within your attack range without triggering attacks of opportunity. For example if you move 5ft into a ranged attacker they can move back 10ft away and fire ate ranged without disadvantage or provoking an opportunity attack. At the same time melee combatants that enter your opportunity range get hit but then you have to move further away to get them out of your strike range or they just engage you again which in open spaces is not an issue but in small rooms or other location of limited movement they can keep your ranged spell attacks at disadvantage.

 

[Robobobo]

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 think the new weapon mastery properties are a game changer though. Let’s say you have a battle axe in one hand and long sword in other. You could potential hit with your axe, knock the creature prone, the hit them with the long sword (sap) and they have disadvantage on their next attack roll. Even at first level you get three weapon mastery options, so you could switch to a warhammer and push an enemy 10 feet. A lot of great potential combo effects.