Just about to start my first 5e game, ever and I last played D&D about 38 years ago or so. So this is a question that I can see can be a problem, but not sure how large a problem. I'm going to be playing a half orc vengeance paladin, so my potential concentration spells, early on, are Hunter's Mark or Bless. I have 16 con, so I will have a +3 on the constitution save for concentration. But should I be planning on taking Resilient or War Caster feats, down the road? At level four, I plan on taking Polearm Master. But if I'm going to be hit and likely hit fairly often, in the front rank, seems like I'm going to be losing a lot of concentration spells, without one of those two feats. Even if all I need to make is a saving throw of 7 or even lower, if you have to make enough rolls, you are going to fail one.
Is losing concentration spells a major or minor problem for your paladin? Just trying to see what to expect.
Paladins typically use their spell slots for smiting rather than concentrating. If you're not planning to take either feat at 4th level, you're probably going to do all right without them since at 6th level you gain Aura of Protection and start adding your Charisma modifier to all saves. If you can get your Cha up to 16-18, you really don't have to worry about losing concentration on a regular basis. At least, that's been my experience running a paladin with 14 Con and 18 Cha.
Yeah, I realize most of my spell slots will be reserved for smiting. But Hunter's Mark, seems like a decent constant addon to my damage, if I can keep it going, that is. I will have to smooth talk the cleric, for the bless spell. lol
I think you’ll find hunters mark isn’t all that useful. You get an extra d6 damage with a level 1 slot vs. 2d8 if you smite. I realize you can shift the hunter’s mark, but most combats in the edition are over fairly quickly, so it won’t be up for very long. And hunters mark, you can cast and still miss the target with the attack, meaning you wasted the slot. With smite, you decide if you want to use it after you hit, so it’s never wasted. You might, on rare occasions, want to use your smite spells if you come across an enemy who is vulnerable to the kind of damage they do, but in general, about the only concentration spell I was casting was magic weapon to overcome resistance, until I got a +1 weapon.
And just a tip if you’re new to the edition, you can only have one concentration spell up at a time. Also, you can take your actions in any order, so you can bonus action cast, then attack, which hopefully will cut out the need for concentration on the smite spells if you use them. And, since smiting isn’t a spell, you can cast a smite spell and also smite on the same attack if you really want to unload on something.
At lower levels, combined with polearm mastery and the bonus attack, extra damage, seems pretty good. Hunter's Mark also lasts for an hour (unless I lose concentration), so for one level 1 spell slot, it may be there for multiple combats, is my thinking. The more attacks you make, the more chances you have to hit. Smite is more damage, at that moment, but Hunter's Mark can, hopefully, be used in several combat situations. I could be wrong, but I liked that it lasts an hour.
If you're worried about keeping concentration, consider:
Paladin's level 6 feature, Aura of Protection, will allow you to add your Charisma modifier to any saving throw you make while you're conscious. That includes Constitution saving throws made to maintain your concentration on spells ("concentration checks").
If that doesn't boost your confidence enough, consider the following feats:
War Caster (Advantage on concentration checks).
Resilient (Con) - allows you to add your proficiency bonus to concentration checks.
As a paladin, many of your spells will require concentration, so it's a decent idea to consider how you might boost your Con saves, even if you do usually just use slots for Smite. And for the record, you can get much more mileage out of a 1st-level Hunters mark than you can out of a 1st-level smite (Once you've made 3 attacks, your hunter's mark will have an average of 10.5 extra damage applied, and a single 1st-level smite has an average of 9 damage). So it's about whether you want sustained, pressure-style damage, or burst damage.
And for the record, you can get much more mileage out of a 1st-level Hunters mark than you can out of a 1st-level smite (Once you've made 3 attacks, your hunter's mark will have an average of 10.5 extra damage applied, and a single 1st-level smite has an average of 9 damage). So it's about whether you want sustained, pressure-style damage, or burst damage.
Thank you! I haven't played 5e yet, but in the Facebook 5e groups, they are all telling me that Hunter's Mark is a waste and just to smite everything. Don't use any spell for anything but smite! I have thought that Divine Smite looks good, but they are missing a lot of the possible utility of Hunter's Mark. Yes, an extra 1-6 damage at level 18, may not be much...but at level 3 it is! lol
Thank you for confirming what I have thought appeared to be the case, from my reading of the class and spells. Appreciate it. I may actually start trying to keep count of all the additional damage, I can do with a Hunter's Mark, just to see if it really adds up. The other factor, I think would be that that 1-6 damage from HM, will likely almost all be useful. A 50 point hit with weapon +str + magic bonus + divine smite, may look good, but if the monster only had 24 hp, then 26 of it was wasted, other than inflating my ego and impressing my party.
It's not after you've made three attacks, its after you've hit on three attacks, which isn't the same. You could easily cast it and then only hit twice in the combat. And yes, it lasts for an hour, but when your party wants to short rest after the fight, there goes your hour. And there is some debate about moving it. After the fight is over, if there are not viable target for you to move it to, can you maintain it? That's really going to be a DM's call, and its something you should clarify with them beforehand so you know.
But, hey, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. Let us know how well it works, I'm curious to see how it works out in the wild and not just this theorizing.
It's not after you've made three attacks, its after you've hit on three attacks, which isn't the same. You could easily cast it and then only hit twice in the combat. And yes, it lasts for an hour, but when your party wants to short rest after the fight, there goes your hour. And there is some debate about moving it. After the fight is over, if there are not viable target for you to move it to, can you maintain it? That's really going to be a DM's call, and its something you should clarify with them beforehand so you know.
But, hey, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. Let us know how well it works, I'm curious to see how it works out in the wild and not just this theorizing.
I am going to try it out. But the key will obviously be, having more than one combat within that hour. It just seems like it would make the paladin have more consistent damage and be a little less bursty. You still keep most of your spell slots for smites, but augmented by the consistent damage of 1-6, every time you hit. That's not much extra at higher levels, but strikes me as worthwhile at lower levels.
Paladin, especially early on, has very few spells per day. Concentration buffs and other longer duration spells let those slots last longer. Smites are generally more action efficient. You'll deal more damage faster by just smiting your spell slots away, especially for dual wielders or pole arm masters. But spells like hunter's mark, bless, protection from evil & good, etc, can be significantly more spell slot efficient if cast early in combat and maintained throughout.
If you just use smites, you can run out of spell slots early, or you have to hoard them and risk not using them when you should.
if instead you use a few longer duration spells, youcan get better efficiency from your spell slots, and can still have a coupleleft over to smite on a lucky crit or cast a utility spell in a pinch - iirc vengeabce oaladins get misty step & dimension door, which can be particularly useful on a melee class that can otherwise be lacking in mobility.
If you just don't want to deal with the hassle of spells, just smiting all your slots away is plenty viable, but imo more considered spell use is the mark of a more effective and experienced paladin player.
Paladin, especially early on, has very few spells per day. Concentration buffs and other longer duration spells let those slots last longer. Smites are generally more action efficient. You'll deal more damage faster by just smiting your spell slots away, especially for dual wielders or pole arm masters. But spells like hunter's mark, bless, protection from evil & good, etc, can be significantly more spell slot efficient if cast early in combat and maintained throughout.
If you just use smites, you can run out of spell slots early, or you have to hoard them and risk not using them when you should.
if instead you use a few longer duration spells, youcan get better efficiency from your spell slots, and can still have a coupleleft over to smite on a lucky crit or cast a utility spell in a pinch - iirc vengeabce oaladins get misty step & dimension door, which can be particularly useful on a melee class that can otherwise be lacking in mobility.
If you just don't want to deal with the hassle of spells, just smiting all your slots away is plenty viable, but imo more considered spell use is the mark of a more effective and experienced paladin player.
Good advice, thank you. I was figuring, I would try to keep one spell slot, available, just for emergency healing or something like lesser restoration, if I can. That may be easier said, than done, until higher levels, when I have more spell slots. HM, to me, looks like a good lower level option, if I can keep it up and get into several combats, during its duration. Many paladins, on other forums, just totally discount HM and basically any spell. All options are SMITE! :)
Per concentration specifically, decent con + good cha with aura of protection can be enough to get you by, but either of resilient constitution or warcaster can be quite worth it. War caster in particular is an obvious choice for sword & board paladins who pick up useful combat spells with somatic but not material components via oath spells or multiclassing. This is because you cannot use a spell focus like your shield emblem to cast spells without a material component. Great weapon paladins can freely take a hand off their weapon to cast a spell and then go back to wielding it whenever they want, so resilient constitution is usually the more attractive option for them, if they want to spend a feat on concentration saves at all.
Paladin has a lot of pressure on your stats, needing a high attack stat and wanting a high charisma as well, so you probably shouldn't be taking more than a single feat, maybe two for variant humans, before focusing on raising those stats, and there are a lot of really strong choices contending for those spots.
If you want to focus on damage, great weapon master and or polearm master is the best way to do that. If you want to focus on tanking and defense, sentinel is almost a must have. Lucky is an often overlooked feat that just makes any character better at everything, including passing concentration checks if need be. Inspiring Leader is a great thematic fit for a paladin and hugely improves your party's overall hp reserves. Alert can massively swing combats before they even start, especially if your paladin's perception bonus is lacking. For the rarer dex based paladin, defensive duelist is something like an at will Shield spell, which is ridiculously good. Heavy armor master scales poorly, but most campaigns end before the feat gets bad, and in the early game while it's still good it is *very* good.
So yeah, concentration spells are great, and often underrated on paladins due to the risk of taking hits and losing concentration in melee, so spending a feat to shore up your concentration saves is a good idea. But the competition for a paladin's ASIs is fierce, so resilient and war caster, while great options, are far from automatic choices.
You'll start with a +3 modifier to maintain concentration and, at 6th level, add your Charisma modifier. And the DC is going to be 10 unless you take 22+ damage in a single attack. Making those checks shouldn't be a problem for a long while.
Hunter's Mark is efficient and Polearm Master is fine, but wielding a 2H weapon can get in the way of material spell components. (I have no idea why everyone goes for a glaive or halberd when spears are perfectly valid). But don't neglect your Charisma and smite spells. Thunderous smite is especially good early on, targeting an uncommon saving throw and knocking the target prone if they fail. Just don't use it against big enemies.
Pike is very inelegant and not exactly what I had in mind. Historically they were extremely long which is perhaps why they are for some reason excluded from Polearm Master extra attack feature.
So we have in 5ed a spear that is relatively short (you can wield it one-handed with a shield or throw it)
and we have a pike that used to be between 10 and 25 feet long.
I was thinking a spear that is about 7-8 feet long, less rigid and heavier than the standard one. Like I said, essentially a Glaive but with piercing damage with all the benefits a Glaive user can get.
Which reminds me that I forgot about that 1d4 extra attack the Glaive gives from Polearm Master aka more chances to hit with divine smite (and to crit with divine smite).
I understand what you are saying about the historical uses of a pike, but in the world of D&D, a pike is mechanically a glaive/halberd but with piercing damage. The only difference, as you note, is not being able to use a pike with PAM. That is a big difference, I have to say, and probably why you don't see a lot of characters using pikes.
(I have no idea why everyone goes for a glaive or halberd when spears are perfectly valid)
Because heavy (elligible for -5/+10 component of Great Weapon Master feat), reach (helps immensely with Sentinel, AoO all around) and 1d10.
With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to homebrewing a greatspear that has similar stats but piercing damage type.
I find it a boring combination because of its popularity in the meta. It also eats up...two ASIs if you get both, and it gets in the way of casting spells requiring a material component. A spear and Dueling only averages 1 DPR less than a glaive/halberd and Great Weapon Style. And you still get to keep your shield with a holy symbol on it out.
That's a build that doesn't come "online" until 12th level; 8th if you're a variant human. It also means not preparing as many spells, having a reduced bonus to saves past 6th level, and possibly even not having better armor than chainmail.
I understand what you are saying about the historical uses of a pike, but in the world of D&D, a pike is mechanically a glaive/halberd but with piercing damage. The only difference, as you note, is not being able to use a pike with PAM. That is a big difference, I have to say, and probably why you don't see a lot of characters using pikes.
Which is why I said that I wouldn't be opposed to a homebrew greatspear.
It's a question of flavor essentially. Someone might have a nice character picture with a spear as opposed to halberd/glaive. As a DM, I'd let them reflavor it without issue unless someone convinces me that having a Glaive dealing piercing damage is somehow overpowered.
Even then I'd allow for a spear with a long blade that can deal slashing damage (like the spear Oberyn Martell used in Game of Thrones) - a yari essentially.
(I have no idea why everyone goes for a glaive or halberd when spears are perfectly valid)
Because heavy (elligible for -5/+10 component of Great Weapon Master feat), reach (helps immensely with Sentinel, AoO all around) and 1d10.
With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to homebrewing a greatspear that has similar stats but piercing damage type.
I find it a boring combination because of its popularity in the meta. It also eats up...two ASIs if you get both, and it gets in the way of casting spells requiring a material component. A spear and Dueling only averages 1 DPR less than a glaive/halberd and Great Weapon Style. And you still get to keep your shield with a holy symbol on it out.
That's a build that doesn't come "online" until 12th level; 8th if you're a variant human. It also means not preparing as many spells, having a reduced bonus to saves past 6th level, and possibly even not having better armor than chainmail.
1. AFAIK it doesn't interfere with casting because you can totally hold a 2h weapon with one hand when you are not attacking and AFAIK you can use the same hand that uses somatic component to manipulate material components (otherwise 1h weapon users without shield would be screwed as well).
2. True, the build does come online "fully" late but Great Weapon Master is not essential - it's the least important feat. Polearm Mastery and Sentinel are absolute priorities and then it comes online respectively at level 8/4 (variant human).
As Variant Human you get to attack 2x at level 1 which is huge. Then at level 4 you get to smack around every first enemy who approaches you, increasing your number of attacks per round drastically. Really, Great Weapon Master is maybe 10% of what is important about this build, I'd even delay it in favor of ASI once, depending on the magical items you find during your campaign.
3. Also true, you take feats instead of ASI and therefore your saves are slightly worse but this is a high DPR build, a trade-off. I'm not saying it's strictly better, I'm just saying why people like it.
4. You absolutely can wear full plate because, again, as a high DPR build you take Str as high as possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just about to start my first 5e game, ever and I last played D&D about 38 years ago or so. So this is a question that I can see can be a problem, but not sure how large a problem. I'm going to be playing a half orc vengeance paladin, so my potential concentration spells, early on, are Hunter's Mark or Bless. I have 16 con, so I will have a +3 on the constitution save for concentration. But should I be planning on taking Resilient or War Caster feats, down the road? At level four, I plan on taking Polearm Master. But if I'm going to be hit and likely hit fairly often, in the front rank, seems like I'm going to be losing a lot of concentration spells, without one of those two feats. Even if all I need to make is a saving throw of 7 or even lower, if you have to make enough rolls, you are going to fail one.
Is losing concentration spells a major or minor problem for your paladin? Just trying to see what to expect.
Appreciate any help with this.
Paladins typically use their spell slots for smiting rather than concentrating. If you're not planning to take either feat at 4th level, you're probably going to do all right without them since at 6th level you gain Aura of Protection and start adding your Charisma modifier to all saves. If you can get your Cha up to 16-18, you really don't have to worry about losing concentration on a regular basis. At least, that's been my experience running a paladin with 14 Con and 18 Cha.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Appreciate the feedback.
Yeah, I realize most of my spell slots will be reserved for smiting. But Hunter's Mark, seems like a decent constant addon to my damage, if I can keep it going, that is. I will have to smooth talk the cleric, for the bless spell. lol
I think you’ll find hunters mark isn’t all that useful. You get an extra d6 damage with a level 1 slot vs. 2d8 if you smite. I realize you can shift the hunter’s mark, but most combats in the edition are over fairly quickly, so it won’t be up for very long.
And hunters mark, you can cast and still miss the target with the attack, meaning you wasted the slot. With smite, you decide if you want to use it after you hit, so it’s never wasted.
You might, on rare occasions, want to use your smite spells if you come across an enemy who is vulnerable to the kind of damage they do, but in general, about the only concentration spell I was casting was magic weapon to overcome resistance, until I got a +1 weapon.
And just a tip if you’re new to the edition, you can only have one concentration spell up at a time. Also, you can take your actions in any order, so you can bonus action cast, then attack, which hopefully will cut out the need for concentration on the smite spells if you use them. And, since smiting isn’t a spell, you can cast a smite spell and also smite on the same attack if you really want to unload on something.
At lower levels, combined with polearm mastery and the bonus attack, extra damage, seems pretty good. Hunter's Mark also lasts for an hour (unless I lose concentration), so for one level 1 spell slot, it may be there for multiple combats, is my thinking. The more attacks you make, the more chances you have to hit. Smite is more damage, at that moment, but Hunter's Mark can, hopefully, be used in several combat situations. I could be wrong, but I liked that it lasts an hour.
If you're worried about keeping concentration, consider:
Paladin's level 6 feature, Aura of Protection, will allow you to add your Charisma modifier to any saving throw you make while you're conscious. That includes Constitution saving throws made to maintain your concentration on spells ("concentration checks").
If that doesn't boost your confidence enough, consider the following feats:
War Caster (Advantage on concentration checks).
Resilient (Con) - allows you to add your proficiency bonus to concentration checks.
As a paladin, many of your spells will require concentration, so it's a decent idea to consider how you might boost your Con saves, even if you do usually just use slots for Smite. And for the record, you can get much more mileage out of a 1st-level Hunters mark than you can out of a 1st-level smite (Once you've made 3 attacks, your hunter's mark will have an average of 10.5 extra damage applied, and a single 1st-level smite has an average of 9 damage). So it's about whether you want sustained, pressure-style damage, or burst damage.
Partway through the quest for absolute truth.
Thank you! I haven't played 5e yet, but in the Facebook 5e groups, they are all telling me that Hunter's Mark is a waste and just to smite everything. Don't use any spell for anything but smite! I have thought that Divine Smite looks good, but they are missing a lot of the possible utility of Hunter's Mark. Yes, an extra 1-6 damage at level 18, may not be much...but at level 3 it is! lol
Thank you for confirming what I have thought appeared to be the case, from my reading of the class and spells. Appreciate it. I may actually start trying to keep count of all the additional damage, I can do with a Hunter's Mark, just to see if it really adds up. The other factor, I think would be that that 1-6 damage from HM, will likely almost all be useful. A 50 point hit with weapon +str + magic bonus + divine smite, may look good, but if the monster only had 24 hp, then 26 of it was wasted, other than inflating my ego and impressing my party.
It's not after you've made three attacks, its after you've hit on three attacks, which isn't the same. You could easily cast it and then only hit twice in the combat. And yes, it lasts for an hour, but when your party wants to short rest after the fight, there goes your hour. And there is some debate about moving it. After the fight is over, if there are not viable target for you to move it to, can you maintain it? That's really going to be a DM's call, and its something you should clarify with them beforehand so you know.
But, hey, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. Let us know how well it works, I'm curious to see how it works out in the wild and not just this theorizing.
I am going to try it out. But the key will obviously be, having more than one combat within that hour. It just seems like it would make the paladin have more consistent damage and be a little less bursty. You still keep most of your spell slots for smites, but augmented by the consistent damage of 1-6, every time you hit. That's not much extra at higher levels, but strikes me as worthwhile at lower levels.
Paladin, especially early on, has very few spells per day. Concentration buffs and other longer duration spells let those slots last longer. Smites are generally more action efficient. You'll deal more damage faster by just smiting your spell slots away, especially for dual wielders or pole arm masters. But spells like hunter's mark, bless, protection from evil & good, etc, can be significantly more spell slot efficient if cast early in combat and maintained throughout.
If you just use smites, you can run out of spell slots early, or you have to hoard them and risk not using them when you should.
if instead you use a few longer duration spells, youcan get better efficiency from your spell slots, and can still have a coupleleft over to smite on a lucky crit or cast a utility spell in a pinch - iirc vengeabce oaladins get misty step & dimension door, which can be particularly useful on a melee class that can otherwise be lacking in mobility.
If you just don't want to deal with the hassle of spells, just smiting all your slots away is plenty viable, but imo more considered spell use is the mark of a more effective and experienced paladin player.
Good advice, thank you. I was figuring, I would try to keep one spell slot, available, just for emergency healing or something like lesser restoration, if I can. That may be easier said, than done, until higher levels, when I have more spell slots. HM, to me, looks like a good lower level option, if I can keep it up and get into several combats, during its duration. Many paladins, on other forums, just totally discount HM and basically any spell. All options are SMITE! :)
Per concentration specifically, decent con + good cha with aura of protection can be enough to get you by, but either of resilient constitution or warcaster can be quite worth it. War caster in particular is an obvious choice for sword & board paladins who pick up useful combat spells with somatic but not material components via oath spells or multiclassing. This is because you cannot use a spell focus like your shield emblem to cast spells without a material component. Great weapon paladins can freely take a hand off their weapon to cast a spell and then go back to wielding it whenever they want, so resilient constitution is usually the more attractive option for them, if they want to spend a feat on concentration saves at all.
Paladin has a lot of pressure on your stats, needing a high attack stat and wanting a high charisma as well, so you probably shouldn't be taking more than a single feat, maybe two for variant humans, before focusing on raising those stats, and there are a lot of really strong choices contending for those spots.
If you want to focus on damage, great weapon master and or polearm master is the best way to do that. If you want to focus on tanking and defense, sentinel is almost a must have. Lucky is an often overlooked feat that just makes any character better at everything, including passing concentration checks if need be. Inspiring Leader is a great thematic fit for a paladin and hugely improves your party's overall hp reserves. Alert can massively swing combats before they even start, especially if your paladin's perception bonus is lacking. For the rarer dex based paladin, defensive duelist is something like an at will Shield spell, which is ridiculously good. Heavy armor master scales poorly, but most campaigns end before the feat gets bad, and in the early game while it's still good it is *very* good.
So yeah, concentration spells are great, and often underrated on paladins due to the risk of taking hits and losing concentration in melee, so spending a feat to shore up your concentration saves is a good idea. But the competition for a paladin's ASIs is fierce, so resilient and war caster, while great options, are far from automatic choices.
You'll start with a +3 modifier to maintain concentration and, at 6th level, add your Charisma modifier. And the DC is going to be 10 unless you take 22+ damage in a single attack. Making those checks shouldn't be a problem for a long while.
Hunter's Mark is efficient and Polearm Master is fine, but wielding a 2H weapon can get in the way of material spell components. (I have no idea why everyone goes for a glaive or halberd when spears are perfectly valid). But don't neglect your Charisma and smite spells. Thunderous smite is especially good early on, targeting an uncommon saving throw and knocking the target prone if they fail. Just don't use it against big enemies.
Because heavy (elligible for -5/+10 component of Great Weapon Master feat), reach (helps immensely with Sentinel, AoO all around) and 1d10.
With that said, I wouldn't be opposed to homebrewing a greatspear that has similar stats but piercing damage type.
No need to homebrew. It’s called a pike.
Pike is very inelegant and not exactly what I had in mind. Historically they were extremely long which is perhaps why they are for some reason excluded from Polearm Master extra attack feature.
So we have in 5ed a spear that is relatively short (you can wield it one-handed with a shield or throw it)
and we have a pike that used to be between 10 and 25 feet long.
I was thinking a spear that is about 7-8 feet long, less rigid and heavier than the standard one. Like I said, essentially a Glaive but with piercing damage with all the benefits a Glaive user can get.
Which reminds me that I forgot about that 1d4 extra attack the Glaive gives from Polearm Master aka more chances to hit with divine smite (and to crit with divine smite).
I understand what you are saying about the historical uses of a pike, but in the world of D&D, a pike is mechanically a glaive/halberd but with piercing damage. The only difference, as you note, is not being able to use a pike with PAM. That is a big difference, I have to say, and probably why you don't see a lot of characters using pikes.
I find it a boring combination because of its popularity in the meta. It also eats up...two ASIs if you get both, and it gets in the way of casting spells requiring a material component. A spear and Dueling only averages 1 DPR less than a glaive/halberd and Great Weapon Style. And you still get to keep your shield with a holy symbol on it out.
That's a build that doesn't come "online" until 12th level; 8th if you're a variant human. It also means not preparing as many spells, having a reduced bonus to saves past 6th level, and possibly even not having better armor than chainmail.
Which is why I said that I wouldn't be opposed to a homebrew greatspear.
It's a question of flavor essentially. Someone might have a nice character picture with a spear as opposed to halberd/glaive. As a DM, I'd let them reflavor it without issue unless someone convinces me that having a Glaive dealing piercing damage is somehow overpowered.
Even then I'd allow for a spear with a long blade that can deal slashing damage (like the spear Oberyn Martell used in Game of Thrones) - a yari essentially.
1. AFAIK it doesn't interfere with casting because you can totally hold a 2h weapon with one hand when you are not attacking and AFAIK you can use the same hand that uses somatic component to manipulate material components (otherwise 1h weapon users without shield would be screwed as well).
2. True, the build does come online "fully" late but Great Weapon Master is not essential - it's the least important feat. Polearm Mastery and Sentinel are absolute priorities and then it comes online respectively at level 8/4 (variant human).
As Variant Human you get to attack 2x at level 1 which is huge. Then at level 4 you get to smack around every first enemy who approaches you, increasing your number of attacks per round drastically. Really, Great Weapon Master is maybe 10% of what is important about this build, I'd even delay it in favor of ASI once, depending on the magical items you find during your campaign.
3. Also true, you take feats instead of ASI and therefore your saves are slightly worse but this is a high DPR build, a trade-off. I'm not saying it's strictly better, I'm just saying why people like it.
4. You absolutely can wear full plate because, again, as a high DPR build you take Str as high as possible.