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

[professorDM]

I don't think feats break the game; I understand if a DM doesn't want to use them, but on the whole I think such wet blankets kill what ought to be a fun, flexible game.

I also don't think polearm master + sentinel breaks anything. As Mouseferatu points out, it's advantages are situationally limited. And on top of this, we're talking about a 4th or 8th level character who has foregone two chances to increase his stats for this ability (and such investment should be advantageous).

As for polearms themselves, I do think there oughta be something in the PHB that limits them in close quarters combat. (If there is, I haven't seen it.) Obviously, a DM worth anything is going to limit the efficiency of a polearm used against an opponent who has closed in, but it doesn't seem too difficult to make this point more obvious: sure, someone closing in is going to take an AoO jab initially, but after that the polearm user is going to be at an extreme disadvantage; it's going to be really, really hard, with a 10' glaive, to hit a goblin who insists on standing on your toes.

For players attacking with a polearm an opponent who's within 5', I'd say you can have a clean 1d4+mods butt strike, but if you want to hit it with armed end of your pole, you'll be attacking with disadvantage.

Used efficiently, however, it can be a great resource for an intelligent party.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Look at the post I quoted. He's basically saying that most people are going to take a greatsword because it does more damage, which is viewing the issue through a DPR lens. And an individual one at that. It's more about "how can I as an individual optimize my DPR" and less about team effectiveness, which is probably how most DPR analysis goes. It also only looks at the issue through a white room analysis, as he's comparing polearm damage vs greatsword damage straight across, and doesn't even consider how often the advantages of using a polearm over a greatsword can come up in actual play. Even without feats, the advantages of formation fighting are pretty significant, and have been a common tactic since the first days of D&D

 

[Diamabel]

As for polearms themselves, I do think there oughta be something in the PHB that limits them in close quarters combat. (If there is, I haven't seen it.) Obviously, a DM worth anything is going to limit the efficiency of a polearm used against an opponent who has closed in, but it doesn't seem too difficult to make this point more obvious: sure, someone closing in is going to take an AoO jab initially, but after that the polearm user is going to be at an extreme disadvantage; it's going to be really, really hard, with a 10' glaive, to hit a goblin who insists on standing on your toes.

I would have to disagree with this. While something like a 12'-18' pike is going to suffer(to the point of being unuseable) at close range, a 5-7' glaive, halberd or quarterstaff has no such drawback, and is extremely effective at close range. 10' reach does not necessarily denote a 10' length of weapon. Real historic pole hammers, halberds and glaives tended towards the 5'-7' length, but still most certainly offer more effective range than a sword, mace, or similar weapon.

"A DM worth anything" is an awfully bold statement to make.

The real imbalance (in the context of 5th edition), IMO, is not that polearm weapons get better through a feat, but that other weapon types (save crossbow master and great weapon master) lack their own feats to keep them competitive.

Cheers!

 

[Minsc]

Is there a rule against a reach weapon being used at a 5' range?

My whole "halberd wielding half orc Fighter" concept had me thinking he could just choke up a bit and still use the weapon close.

When you look at it, using the Polearm Master feat with that 1d4 butt end attack doesn't make a lot of sense at the 10' range.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Pole axes being useless at close range is one of those nerd fallacies that needs to die along with "plate armor is super unwieldy" and "the katana can cut through anything"

 

[professorDM]

I would have to disagree with this. While something like a 12'-18' pike is going to suffer(to the point of being unuseable) at close range, a 5-7' glaive, halberd or quarterstaff has no such drawback, and is extremely effective at close range. 10' reach does not necessarily denote a 10' length of weapon. Real historic pole hammers, halberds and glaives tended towards the 5'-7' length, but still most certainly offer more effective range than a sword, mace, or similar weapon.

"A DM worth anything" is an awfully bold statement to make.

The real imbalance (in the context of 5th edition), IMO, is not that polearm weapons get better through a feat, but that other weapon types (save crossbow master and great weapon master) lack their own feats to keep them competitive.

Cheers!

There's no way a 7' or 10' halberd or glaive is "extremely effective at close range." Sure, maybe you can still get off some modicum of an attack, but it's nowhere near peak efficiency. Granted I think it's ideal range and AoO make it a very useful and viable weapon, but I do think its use can be seriously limited in a tunnel or cave or against folks who break past your AoO and close in.

On the whole, I'd always side on behalf of players' enjoyment and overall balance---and my problem with the polearm is probably not a huge deal and a sign of my taking the battle mechanics a little too seriously---but it does seem to me unrealistic.

As for other fighting styles (aside from ranged attackers, and great weapon and pike masters) not having a similar benefit via feats: I think the defensive duelist feat, the dual wielder feat, the mounted combatant feat, the war caster and spell sniper feats, and the shield master feat are all equally effective strategies. (And that's saying nothing of the actual bonus of having a second offhand weapon attack, or the benefit of a shield, or of a free hand with which to cast spells.)

 

[Paraxis]

Is there a rule against a reach weapon being used at a 5' range?

My whole "halberd wielding half orc Fighter" concept had me thinking he could just choke up a bit and still use the weapon close.

When you look at it, using the Polearm Master feat with that 1d4 butt end attack doesn't make a lot of sense at the 10' range.

There is no penalty for attacking at the 5' range.

The d4 polearm master feat has a 10' range.
It is also part of the same weapon so has any buffs the weapon does, is considered two handed for things like great weapon fighting style and great weapon master feat. It gains rage bonus damage, can be used with cleric divine strike abilities, all in all that d4 attack is amazing.

 

[Diamabel]

There's no way a 7' or 10' halberd or glaive is "extremely effective at close range." Sure, maybe you can still get off some modicum of an attack, but it's nowhere near peak efficiency. Granted I think it's ideal range and AoO make it a very useful and viable weapon, but I do think its use can be seriously limited in a tunnel or cave or against folks who break past your AoO and close in.

On the whole, I'd always side on behalf of players' enjoyment and overall balance---and my problem with the polearm is probably not a huge deal and a sign of my taking the battle mechanics a little too seriously---but it does seem to me unrealistic.

As for other fighting styles (aside from ranged attackers, and great weapon and pike masters) not having a similar benefit via feats: I think the defensive duelist feat, the dual wielder feat, the mounted combatant feat, the war caster and spell sniper feats, and the shield master feat are all equally effective strategies. (And that's saying nothing of the actual bonus of having a second offhand weapon attack, or the benefit of a shield, or of a free hand with which to cast spells.)

I stated that I was looking at halberds, glaives and quarterstaves with a length of 5'-7'. And yes, there is most certainly a way that these weapons are *extremely* effective at close range. The efficiency of weapons of these types is that they have both range and versatility(in reality, not the 5th ed weapon property ), it's not a "close range *or* long range" weapon: it's both. You could reasonably argue that the butt strike be limited to a 5' range, but the business end can be used both at 10' range and 5' range. The drawback, as some have stated is the lack of a free hand to use a shield.

The anomaly is the pike: it gets lumped in with the other, shorter pole arms(again, of 5' to 7" length), when it really shouldn't. More realistically (if you were so inclined) you could give a 12'-18' pike a range of 15' or 20', with it unable to be used effectively within 5'.

The other feats mentioned are decent, but are not on the same level as GWM, CM and PM (in my opinion)

 

[Pauper]

The other solution is not to approach the polearm fighter -- if he has to close to engage his enemies, then when they move from 10' to 5' to counterattack, the polearm fighter doesn't get an Attack of Opportunity.

 

[Diamabel]

The other solution is not to approach the polearm fighter -- if he has to close to engage his enemies, then when they move from 10' to 5' to counterattack, the polearm fighter doesn't get an Attack of Opportunity.

Easily solved by the polearm fighter by stepping to 10', making attacks, and retreating to 15', forcing the target to enter the threatened space to close the gap once again

This is made even more powerful if the polearm master also has sentinel- So long as the PA/sentinel fighter keeps connecting with OAs, a single melee target with 5' reach may never get into striking range.

There are weaknesses to this, of course- limited to 1 reaction, so mobbing the pole weapon fighter limits it's effectiveness. Another is space- if the PA cannot maneuver at all, it steals much of the advantage PA gains (aside from the butt stroke).