D&D 5E Polearm Mastery feat bonus attack

[Thyrwyn]

Thanks, new to forums.

Welcome aboard!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Some things about polearm mastery that are correct per the rules as written that I have seen people have issue with but in all honestly are not that big of a deal.

Conceptually, the bonus attack is a haft strike, and is thus more akin to fighting with an off-hand weapon than with a great weapon. Thus, it makes more sense that:

- The bonus attack does not have reach.
- The bonus attack does not add STR modifier to damage, unless you have the appropriate fighting style.
- The bonus attack is not made with a two-handed weapon, so neither the great weapon feat nor fighting style would apply.

At least, that's an argument which makes sense to me. Considering the alternative - that this combination would allow you to get the best of both worlds, by applying all of the benefits of great-weapons to the primary benefit of dual-wielding - this seems like the preferable interpretation. It's no fun for anyone if combination of weapons and feats is so far-and-away better than any other alternative. (Personally, I care more that the mechanics are consistent for off-hand strikes.)

Note that 3.5 spelled this out explicitly, and using a double-weapon as a two-handed weapon (for the purposes of Power Attack, and extra Strength damage) required you to forgo the ability to attack with the other end of the weapon.

 

[Kikuras]

Conceptually, the bonus attack is a haft strike, and is thus more akin to fighting with an off-hand weapon than with a great weapon. Thus, it makes more sense that:

- The bonus attack does not have reach.
- The bonus attack does not add STR modifier to damage, unless you have the appropriate fighting style.
- The bonus attack is not made with a two-handed weapon, so neither the great weapon feat nor fighting style would apply.

At least, that's an argument which makes sense to me. Considering the alternative - that this combination would allow you to get the best of both worlds, by applying all of the benefits of great-weapons to the primary benefit of dual-wielding - this seems like the preferable interpretation. It's no fun for anyone if combination of weapons and feats is so far-and-away better than any other alternative. (Personally, I care more that the mechanics are consistent for off-hand strikes.)

Note that 3.5 spelled this out explicitly, and using a double-weapon as a two-handed weapon (for the purposes of Power Attack, and extra Strength damage) required you to forgo the ability to attack with the other end of the weapon.

An interesting take on the feat. It might be fun to try and use it with TWF instead.