DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
LOL I assumed it was! I was being facetious.oh no, that was at higher level and a game where we got an extra feat.
LOL I assumed it was! I was being facetious.oh no, that was at higher level and a game where we got an extra feat.
IMO. There are multiple paths to damage for a fighter/paladin/etc. You mentioned 1 above and that is feats. However, there is also multiclassing and multiclassing further drifts into 2 paradigms - high single damage attack + reaction attack (often rogue) - or many attacks with damage enhancement.(I'm going to be using the term fighter, but also applies to a paladin and some other "warrior" concepts).
There has been a lot of discussion how in 5e the shield and weapon using fighter is a bit... underwhelming... when compared to other options. This is mainly due to limited feat support: I'm doing 1d8+7 with my sword and dueling fighting style fighter, while the PAM/GWM is doing massive damage.
There are still incredibly strong feats for sword and shield. Any feat that grants even a single cast of hex per day is very strong. The feat for more battlemaster manuevers is very nice as well. Sentinel pairs very well. Inspiring leader and chef are solid defensive staples. Lucky is solid all around.What if this was... on purpose? Or if it's not on purpose, what if this was a "happy accident?"
If we look at a featless game, sword and board is actually somewhat better - if you take dueling fighting style, your damage output is basically the same as a 2 handed weapon and you have a shield!
So in a game with feats, because you really can't take things to improve your fighting style (there is shield master but it's... decent, not great?), you can take... whatever feat you want! Or just increase your stats if you don't like feats. You don't feel the "pressure" to take those "important" combat feats because they are simply not meaningful to you.
Sure. I mean you can use those feats with a greatsword and defensive style just as easily though. It's just the tradeoff feels better as you don't feel like you are giving up as much by not having the GWM/PAM feat option.I once made a dex-built melee fighter with shield and sword, and for feats by the end of the campaign I had ritual caster, chef, lucky ... was my PC as hard hitting as he could have been? No, but he was very versatile - a better rounded adventurer vs a mere DPS machine. I'm sure there are many other example of fun and useful combos a PC could have when they aren't "forced" to take PAM/GWM or SS/CE....
I think only slightly so. And it comes with some noticable downsides. Changing to a ranged weapon when wielding a shield is rough. Grappling when using a shield is rough. There's always the concern that without significant damage output that enemies can just ignore the high ac fighter (different dm npc battle tactics really change things).EDIT: to be clear: Sword and Shield is a bit better to compensate for the lack of feats
If I recall a shield +2 doesn't require atunement. So if you get enough magic items that atunement is a concern then shields are typically going to be better than +2 ac. That's something that's usually left out of the analysis but is very important IMO.For Sword and Shield specifically, I think the Shield doesn't give enough of a benefit to make up for the huge difference in damage if feats are involved, at least for a Fighter. Without feats, it should be better, yeah.
I always think of most uses of PAM to be more like flipping it "around" from axe-blade to pointy-bit at the same end of the polearm rather than butt-end, which is very viable, but only really when you're surrounded and hit a second opponent. (Not a polearm's intended fighting style, but something any competent fighter ought to be able to do in a pinch).Mechanically, I am 100% ok with a spear fighter getting one "quick extra jab" doing a bit less damage. Twirling the spear around one handed? uuuugh.
I think making a "butt attack" was probably a mistake in the first place - while the "bo" style of staff fighting with both ends is legit and does exist, in the west both quarterstaves and polearms a grip designed to maximized reach. Another "bonus" for being a polearm master probably would have been better...
Items are entirely DM dependant, so it's usually easier to ignore them. If you can get the ones you want, then magic shields would get you way higher, yeah, you can easily get 25+ AC with them and magic armor.If I recall a shield +2 doesn't require atunement. So if you get enough magic items that atunement is a concern then shields are typically going to be better than +2 ac. That's something that's usually left out of the analysis but is very important IMO.
YesItems are entirely DM dependant,
I disagree. Just because it depends on the current campaign doesn't mean we can just ignore them. When the difference with and without coupled with the liklihood they are present in a random campaign isn't miniscule and that's enough to potentially change the analysis then it's worth noting that difference exists for games where such circumstances are present.so it's usually easier to ignore them.
It's not even about 'getting what you want'. Magic shields aren't exactly a rare magic item to see handed out.If you can get the ones you want, then magic shields would get you way higher, yeah, you can easily get 25+ AC with them and magic armor.
That's kind of the point, though isn't it? Why would you ban something that allows you to do the thing you think you should be able to do, just because someone wrote some dumb fluff for it? (Not the sword part, I mean for a spear fighter).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.
I've always looked at the "butt attack" (as my players put it) as using the haft of the weapon in a sideways strike, which is based on the actual use of several polearms. If you had to swing the whole weapon around, I'd hope you didn't have any friends standing nearbyI always think of most uses of PAM to be more like flipping it "around" from axe-blade to pointy-bit at the same end of the polearm rather than butt-end, which is very viable, but only really when you're surrounded and hit a second opponent. (Not a polearm's intended fighting style, but something any competent fighter ought to be able to do in a pinch).
I think we can all agree that even in general, the flipping the staff around idea is based on an incomplete understanding of fighting by whoever wrote that bit of fluff (and you're right, it comes mostly from how bojutsu works). The idea that you could somehow get an extra attack (that you somehow couldn't get by just thrusting the same end again) is just plain ridiculous.
I've always looked at the "butt attack" (as my players put it) as using the haft of the weapon in a sideways strike, which is based on the actual use of several polearms. If you had to swing the whole weapon around, I'd hope you didn't have any friends standing nearby![]()
Sure, which is why I said there are some cases where you might do so. It’s just not typically going to be your best option. And it certainly won’t be catching anyone off-guard when you do it consistently every 6 secondsHolding the spear (or staff...) with one-hand and doing a reverse spin to swing the butt-end around is easy enough. It isn't as effective (hence the low damage), but can catch an opponent off guard.
Yeah, it’s a pretty strong style, but I think balanced fine compared to PAM with a halberd or glaive and defense fighting style. Same average damage, just sacrificing the higher maximum and Reach for +1 AC. Also both hands are continually occupied instead of having one hand free when you aren’t attacking.I had a PC who was a spear/shield ranger with Dueling and STR 18 and PAM, so the butt-end damage was d4+6.![]()
I would not agree with this. Champion and Purple Dragon are the only ones that really apply equally.I would need to be on a PC to write a full reply, but I will say the central bit:
I didn't really consider the subclasses, because they benefit most styles roughly equally
?????Last time I looked staves and spears were not polearms...ever.
It’s viable in some situations. Just usually not the best option.It's funny, because they left the Pike out of that attack, which presumes that even the designer felt that turning a pike all the way around was a step too far.
It's too far with the other weapons as well.
The solution is not to limit it to weapons that someone who doesn't know what they're talking about would think would work - the solution ought to be to change the fluff. There's many, many ways why any of that group of weapons (and, as @Oofta says, many other weapons, and weapon combinations) could have to get an extra 1d4 bludgeoning thump in.
But think about how good you would be at it doing it every 6 seconds!Sure, which is why I said there are some cases where you might do so. It’s just not typically going to be your best option. And it certainly won’t be catching anyone off-guard when you do it consistently every 6 seconds![]()
I think overall it is well-balanced between the different build types, each have their strengths and weaknesses of course.Yeah, it’s a pretty strong style, but I think balanced fine compared to PAM with a halberd or glaive and defense fighting style. Same average damage, just sacrificing the higher maximum and Reach for +1 AC. Also both hands are continually occupied instead of having one hand free when you aren’t attacking.
?????
When did you look? Spears have always been polearms. They are the quintesential pole arm. Most would consider quarterstaffs and cudgels to be pole arms too.
A pole arm means literally a weapon (arm) made from a pole.
Insert snarky 4E reference here.That's kind of the point, though isn't it? Why would you ban something that allows you to do the thing you think you should be able to do, just because someone wrote some dumb fluff for it?
It’s ok. It got derailed in less than 1 page.I edited my OP to make my central point clear: Sword and Shield is a bit better to compensate for the lack of feats
Ok, so I went to Wikipedia, and found this:Help yourself to a quick wiki search. There are no staves, cudgels, or any other far-fetched wooden poles except for weapons with heads attached. All shown are two handed wooden shafts with all kinds of shapes of weapon heads.
So apparently calling a polearm a "staff-weapon" or "stave" was perfectly legitimate.Staff-weapons in Medieval or Renaissance England were lumped together under the generic term "staves" but when dealing with them in detail we are faced with terminological difficulty. There never seems to have been a clear definition of what was what; there were apparently far fewer staff-weapons in use than there were names to call them by; and contemporary writers up to the seventeenth century use these names with abandon, calling different weapons by the same name and similar weapons by different names. To add to this, we have various nineteenth century terminologies used by scholars. We must remember too that any particular weapon ... had everywhere a different name.