D&D 5E Reach weapons: what's the drawback?

[Unwise]

I am a huge fan of polearms and use them a lot, so here are my pet peeves with them.

For me, the traditional problem with polearms is that in a civilized area you simply don't have one on you most of the time. If you are walking around town, I seriously doubt a PC has a pike or halberd with them. In all but the worst towns, a sword on the hip is pushing it. Apart from the funny looks, walking around with a pike is just really impractical. Fortunately, now D&D is far less focused on forcing people into a particular weapon through expertise etc. You can just carry a quarterstaff or a sword and still be effective.

The other problem is that they excel at second rank fighting, but in a small group, that is best used in tight quarters. Unfortunately, tight quarters is exactly the time a DM might decide to impose disadvantage on many reach weapons. It's a bit hard to swing a poleaxe in a kobold tunnel.

The other issue with second rank fighting is that if you are a fighter, you should be the one taking the hits. If you are standing behind somebody, it probably means the bard or cleric has had to step up and take your place at the front. Reach weapons can be best left for semi-combatants.

Polearm Mastery + Sentinel seems rather broken to many groups. You might want to check with your DM before going down that path. It has inspired some DMs to ban feats, which I don't think is much fun for anybody.

 

[Bayonet]

or people who play with tactics and have a front row fighter in the party with the pole arm fighter in the rear so both fighters can attack in confined places like a dungeon or really anywhere you fight in formation. Like we've been doing for 34 years.

but hey, keep viewing the game through dpr glasses if you want

In my current game, I'm playing a heavily armored sword and board fighter. The other martial is a half-orc barbarian with a pike to back up his great-axe.

The amount of times I block a choke point, stabbing and holding the line while a raging barb pikes people in the face over my shoulder are countless, and ridiculously fun. Power-gamers take note, not everything is about squeezing out the most optimal build.

 

[Mistwell]

So to answer "Who would ever build a character concentrating on Pole Arms and not take this feat?", someone who didn't mind doing less damage for the sake of the flavor of having a polearm, and for the few times fighting with reach is important, in a campaign that didn't allow feats. So almost no one ever.

Why do you think your preferences are representative of an overwhelming majority of players? I know you didn't say those words, but that to me is the clear implication of your paragraph and particularly final sentence.

In my group at least, the player with the polearm uses it...to reach stuff. He's usually second rank, putting the defender fighter between him and his target. It works really well most of the time.

 

[PnPgamer]

What is so broken about polearm master + sentinel?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What is so broken about polearm master + sentinel?

When an enemy approaches you, it provokes an opportunity attack. If you hit with the opportunity attack, its speed drops to zero.

As long as you outreach the enemy, and it has no ranged attack, and you have room to back up every round, and you keep hitting it, it will never get to attack you.

 

[fuindordm]

When an enemy approaches you, it provokes an opportunity attack. If you hit with the opportunity attack, its speed drops to zero.

As long as you outreach the enemy, and it has no ranged attack, and you have room to back up every round, and you keep hitting it, it will never get to attack you.

Every time someone quotes this rule, I get a warm tingly feeling inside.

The DMs solution is to overrun, of course--you only get one reaction a round so the spearholder can't fend off 2 orcs.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think this is mostly another "white room" concern that won't come up too terribly often. Why? Because the character's opponent has to:

1) Not have reach (which means almost anything larger than Medium is out);

2) Not have a ranged attack of any kind;

3) Be alone (as [MENTION=5435]fuindordm[/MENTION] pointed out).

And, if all those circumstances are met, you still have to be on a battlefield that allows for constant retreat, and the enemy has to have a solid reason for continuing to come at you rather than go for one of the other PCs.

Will it come up? Sure, it'll happen. That's why it costs two feats to do it. But it won't be common enough in most campaigns to be game-breaking.

 

[Bayonet]

I think Mouse is right. If every combat you get into is essentially "One medium melee creature per player, on an endless plain" the feats together would be broken. If your DM starts getting imaginative (or, logical) with the combat encounters, the feats would still be useful, but not OP.

 

[PnPgamer]

Ogres dont have reach either

 

[pemerton]

or people who play with tactics and have a front row fighter in the party with the pole arm fighter in the rear so both fighters can attack in confined places like a dungeon or really anywhere you fight in formation. Like we've been doing for 34 years.

but hey, keep viewing the game through dpr glasses if you want

Your closing line doesn't make any sense to me. You are simply arguing that DPR can be increased by using a polearm in a two-rank formation.