D&D 5E Have we misunderstood the shield and sword fighter (or warrior)?

[niklinna]

True story - I played a Halfling Monk that I fluffed as "just a Chef" - everything that was monk about him he did by accident. He once Stunned a T-Rex (might have been an Allosaurus) by hitting it on the nose with his Frying Pan while trying not to get eaten. This was on the Isle of Dread, naturally!

I played a rogue in a larp one time whose weapons and alchemy were his mother's bad cooking...a stale baguette for a sap, various failed dishes for poisons. His back story (me being nearly 6' tall) was, "Kieran love, you keep bumpin' yer head on the rafters, have ye thought about setting out to be an adventurer?"

 

[Mad_Jack]

But for some reason I'm wondering now whether a shovel counts as a polearm....

Dark Sun 4E Gouge, aka the "war shovel" (center of image)
Fell under both the axe and spear weapon groups. But, technically, by the 4E rules, not a polearm...
Not sure how they handled it in previous editions.

 

[niklinna]

Dark Sun 4E Gouge, aka the "war shovel" (center of image)
Fell under both the axe and spear weapon groups. But, technically, by the 4E rules, not a polearm...

View attachment 262320

I must admit, I would expect at least one straight line somewhere on the weapon to call it a "pole"-anything.

 

[Seramus]

+2 DPR doesn't threaten games.
Seducing dragons threatens games.

 

[TwoSix]

If PAM is okay using a spear 1 handed, why isn't it okay if holding a sword or hitting someone with the shield? Whacking some with the pommel or cross guard of the sword was absolutely a thing.

It's not the ability to get the bonus attack that bothers me per se, it's the weirdly narrow application.

Honestly, the core functionality of feats like Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master, which are to trade accuracy for more damage and make an additional attack as a bonus action, should just be part of the core rules for combat.

 

[FrogReaver]

Honestly, the core functionality of feats like Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master, which are to trade accuracy for more damage and make an additional attack as a bonus action, should just be part of the core rules for combat.

I don't agree. Personally I'd rather have them not be rules at all, but if they are rules I'd rather have them relegated to a subsystem like feats.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't agree. Personally I'd rather have them not be rules at all, but if they are rules I'd rather have them relegated to a subsystem like feats.

To counter, if they have to be feats, then they should at least not be weapon specific.

 

[FrogReaver]

To counter, if they have to be feats, then they should at least not be weapon specific.

I'd say yes and no there.

In my ideal system such 'feats' if they existed would be more or less weapon neutral, both in application and effect. The problem for me is that in 5e the effect of such feats for different weapon configurations is noticeably different.

TWF + -5/+10 is much better than Greatsword + -5/+10. If that gap was somehow lessened then maybe.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd say yes and no there.

In my ideal system such 'feats' if they existed would be more or less weapon neutral, both in application and effect. The problem for me is that in 5e the effect of such feats for different weapon configurations is noticeably different.

TWF + -5/+10 is much better than Greatsword + -5/+10. If that gap was somehow lessened then maybe.

TWF would obviously need to be modified to ensure the opportunity cost to gain a BA attack is the same for all weapon configurations.

 

[FrogReaver]

TWF would obviously need to be modified to ensure the opportunity cost to gain a BA attack is the same for all weapon configurations.

Yea, I mean if we are modifying that and other weapon related things then sure. I think often the disagreement in such suggestions has to do with the overall scope of changes we are talking about. Like the only change of making the feats available to all weapons, or modifying weapons and making the feats available to all. The responses to those 2 ideals will often be quite a bit different and it's not always clear which idea is being advocated for when a single change is mentioned.