D&D 5E Quarterstaff, shield and polearm master

[5ekyu]

Am I the only one annoyed that adding a tip to the quarterstaff (making it a spear) suddenly stops it from working with PAM?

Actually, its not the pointy bit (bludgeon v pierce) but the thrown bit that takes you out of Polearm category. Most GMs i know would have no problem with a pointy quarterstaff defined with piercing. Most i know would have a problem with a thrown polearm.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[jaelis]

If you think polearm master with staff and shield is too good compared to PM with glaive, does that mean you think plain staff and shield is too good compared to plain glaive? I think the benefits from the feat are the same either way. Actually the glaive probably gets more benefit from the opportunity attack part, thanks to its reach.

 

[Caliban]

The strange case of the quarterstaff.

Quarterstaff: 1d6 (versatile 1d8) + STR. Using with a one hand, you can apply the Fighting Style Dueling that gives +2 bonus to damage roll. In addition, it is possible to apply the Polearm Master feat, which makes you use your bonus action to make an extra attack.

The problem, in my view, is that you can use the combination of fighting style along with feat and shield. Compared to a greatsword, this combo gives 51.5 DPR (4d6+20+8+1d4+5+2 = 51,5) while a greatsword gives 52 DPR (both Fighter LVL 20).

The combination brings to you a better Armor Class (at least you get +2 because of the shield, up to +5 with magical shield) and if you have a +1 magic weapon, you'll deal more damage than greatsword.

I believe that when he includes the quarterstaff in the feat was intended to be used with both hands, like glaive. However, there is a Sage Advice saying that is possible using with only one hand, but I believe they never imagined this bizarre and unreal combination.

Yep, it works by the rules.

No it's not a big deal. (Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter have a greater impact on the game).

Some people find it annoying and house rule it away anyway. Which (in my opinion) just gets rid of an interesting character option and gives players more incentive to simply use Great Weapon Master.

 

[Caliban]

Wait until character get the shillelagh cantrip. turning all those attacks to d8

Yes. Going from 1d6 to 1d8 is true power. The game cannot survive.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you think polearm master with staff and shield is too good compared to PM with glaive, does that mean you think plain staff and shield is too good compared to plain glaive? I think the benefits from the feat are the same either way. Actually the glaive probably gets more benefit from the opportunity attack part, thanks to its reach.

It's mostly dueling fighting style coupled with that.

 

[Blue]

As long as you buy the game-presented assumption that the quarterstaff is a 1 handed (versatile) weapon, then using it was a shield like any other 1 handed weapon should be fine. And PAM has no limitation on number of hands used.

If you don't envision the quarterstaff as a 1 handed weapon, then fix that root problem - it has nothing to do with shields nor PAM.

 

[Shiroiken]

Actually, its not the pointy bit (bludgeon v pierce) but the thrown bit that takes you out of Polearm category. Most GMs i know would have no problem with a pointy quarterstaff defined with piercing. Most i know would have a problem with a thrown polearm.

Why? "Polearm" is a fiction in 5E, referenced only by a single feat. There are no weapon categories, and if there were, I doubt quarterstaff would be put in it anyway. IMO, if you accept quarterstaff for PAM, there is really no logical reason why the spear shouldn't qualify as well (if you don't, it's an irrelevant point). Of course, the removal of the Pike from PAM irks me as well, so...

 

[5ekyu]

Why? "Polearm" is a fiction in 5E, referenced only by a single feat. There are no weapon categories, and if there were, I doubt quarterstaff would be put in it anyway. IMO, if you accept quarterstaff for PAM, there is really no logical reason why the spear shouldn't qualify as well (if you don't, it's an irrelevant point). Of course, the removal of the Pike from PAM irks me as well, so...

Huh? I thought pike was specifically mentioned in PAM? How was it removed?

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[jaelis]

Huh? I thought pike was specifically mentioned in PAM? How was it removed?

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

The second benefit of the feat applies to pikes, the first does not.

 

[5ekyu]

The second benefit of the feat applies to pikes, the first does not.

Thats what i thought, it is there, but it doesnt get the swinging benefit... Which does fit my image of pike BTW.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app