I'm sorry, but no. The general rule for damage rolls is as follows contains the following:
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.
The rules don't care if this is a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, a natural weapon, or even an improvised weapon.
And when making the Bonus Action attack granted by Polearm Master, you are expressly making a weapon attack. So this general rule applies. You don't need a specific rule stating so.
No. All weapon's add the damage modifier when the game says they add them. PAM is not your typical weapon attack and thus it doesn't apply unless PAM says so.
You have it exactly backwards. This is the general rule:
So unless a more specific rule tells you not to add your ability modifier to a damage roll for an attack with a weapon, you do. For example, two-weapon fighting specifically tells you not to.
I liked leaning in on the summon spells and have a 16 wisdom. The face stuff is fine but I mainly have it because he replaced the bard I had been running and we needed a decent face. I think the con save proficiency is probably the way to go for how I want to play him. Deadly archer who leverages spell casting beyond hunters mark in most fights
I'm sorry, but no. The general rule for damage rolls is as follows contains the following:
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier — the same modifier used for the attack roll — to the damage. A spell tells you which dice to roll for damage and whether to add any modifiers.
The rules don't care if this is a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, a natural weapon, or even an improvised weapon.
And when making the Bonus Action attack granted by Polearm Master, you are expressly making a weapon attack. So this general rule applies. You don't need a specific rule stating so.
You are not Expressly making a weapon attack. Your Expressly making the separate specific attack that PAM allows you to make.
By your logic two weapon Fighting style Doesn't matter. Because I'm potentially always making expressly a weapon attack despite the fact that two Weapon Fighting says that these general rules that your saying work on all weapon attacks no matter what don't work.
Your Forcing the General onto the Specific. Your not Allowing the Specific to take Precedence. PAM is the Specific and it's not expressly a general weapon attack. It is a specific attack as purely defined by PAM under the specific conditions that PAM says it's available. That is all. PAM just happens to say in it's description. That it's specifically not a Primary Weapon Attack that has the specific characteristics of doing 1d4 damage of a bludgeoning nature.
And If you go look at PAM it indeed says that it is not a primary attack. Otherwise it would not need the words "uses the same Modifier as the Primary Attack" It does not say use the Same modifier for Damage as the weapon attack. it does not say it is the same thing as the Primary Weapon Attack except whatever else. It's Saying quite Specifically that it is not in Fact the Primary attack. It is telling you the Value of the Attack Roll. It is telling you specifically that the Damage is 1d4 and that it does Bludgeoning Damage. No matter what the Actual Weapon Does. It superscedes all of those details in the Feat.
It makes itself blatantly obvious on what it's doing and we just never paid attention to it. We just glanced through and applied everything that we always do and nobody has really called attention to it up until this point. As I said. Even I didn't realize what it said for the longest time. Everything about the bonus Action attack is written exactly in terms of "This is what It is, this is how it works, and this is what it does." It does not actually make room for anything more than that in the way it's worded. It is not worded in a "change normal value's to these things" wording that all other rules and abilities in the game use.
I liked leaning in on the summon spells and have a 16 wisdom. The face stuff is fine but I mainly have it because he replaced the bard I had been running and we needed a decent face. I think the con save proficiency is probably the way to go for how I want to play him. Deadly archer who leverages spell casting beyond hunters mark in most fights
Yeah, without knowing the rest of your build, Resilient Con seems pretty fitting.
Making a "weapon attack" is contextually irrelevant. The rule we quoted to you states that it applies to all attacks made with weapons. PAM's attacks are made with a weapon.
Yes you are. A weapon attack is any attack made with a weapon.
no. it's not. A Weapon Attack is an Attack Usually Made with a Weapon Yes. But it is not any attack made with Weapons. Nor are all attacks made without weapons necessarily not Weapon Attacks.
I already pointed out one Way that a Weapon attack does not actually count as a weapon attack for purposes of the Damage Modifier. But there is also Various spells that make weapons that don't actually count as weapon attacks either. There are touch attacks form various creatures and stuff as well as attacks from classes that do not count as weapon attacks . And there are things that are not made with weapons that do count as weapon attacks.
But even more than all of that. There are attacks that can be made from various weapons that are actually either the casting of spells or other effects that function like casting spells. Yet they aren't CAsting a Spell Either. They most often come under Activating a Magic item. Magical Staves are the most obvious version of this because they are almost all by default both weapon and spell casting focus at the same time with activate an item functions built into them.
Shadow Blade is a fine example of a spell that creates a weapon to make weapon attacks but opposite of that Blade of Disaster is a summoned weapon that makes purely spell attacks. Sun Soul Monks create Melee Spell attacks from their fists. Which is a weapon. Astral Self Monks can make weapon attacks entirely without a weapon but through a class feature that allows them to make unarmed attacks.
Even things like Soul Knife Rogue which function on the mental creation of a weapon long enough to make a weapon attack actually makes a clarification that the Modifier is to be added to damage as well.
PAM is actually notable in the fact that it doesn't make the distinction even though so many other things that should fall under the general rule for the same reasons expressed in this thread do make the distinction. It's one of the only places that is a specific attack that you could claim is a weapon attack that is provided that does not in fact mention adding the Attribute Damage. That's true all the way from the base materials all the way up to Tasha's. That's not them having switched the language they use. it's the same kind of language in almost all instances that is consistant for years. That's just another way the language is significant and shows that PAM does not work the way we've been treating it for so long.
Making a "weapon attack" is contextually irrelevant. The rule we quoted to you states that it applies to all attacks made with weapons. PAM's attacks are made with a weapon.
It's not contextually irrelevant. It's contextually irrelevant to you because you do not like what the alternative could mean. The Rule is General. it can, and is, over written in a number of places by specifics. That is the full reality of it. And the full reality is that the Specifics Written do not agree with you.
Nor does the way it is written actually agree with you. It may suck. you may not like it. You may choose to ignore it at your table. I'd been doing it without even realizing it for years because I just never noticed. But PAM does not fit the general with the way it is written. Nor does it match the way other abilities and the like that are written elsewhere in the materials even when they do match the general rule your clinging to. it's distinctly different. These Differences are Important in the way the game is written.
Making a "weapon attack" is contextually irrelevant. The rule we quoted to you states that it applies to all attacks made with weapons. PAM's attacks are made with a weapon.
It's not contextually irrelevant.
Ok, so why does it matter if it's a weapon attack? You tell me.
It's contextually irrelevant to you because you do not like what the alternative could mean.
What I like or don't like is irrelevant here.
The Rule is General.
Which rule? Are you conceding that the general rule is that a damage roll made for an attack with a weapon uses your ability modifier?
it can, and is, over written in a number of places by specifics.
Extremely true. I gave an example of this happening. You did not.
That is the full reality of it. And the full reality is that the Specifics Written do not agree with you.
Ok, please show me the specific rule stating PAM does not include ability modifier. I showed you the general rule stating it does, and you seem to have conceded that the general rule I showed you is really the general rule.
Nor does the way it is written actually agree with you.
Ok, please provide the text backing up your claim.
It may suck. you may not like it.
Yes, this is correct. My opinion on the matter doesn't matter.
You may choose to ignore it at your table.
Also correct.
I'd been doing it without even realizing it for years because I just never noticed. But PAM does not fit the general with the way it is written.
Again, please provide the text backing up your claim. Where is the text that twf has, specifying that the ability modifier doesn't apply, in the PAM rules block?
Nor does it match the way other abilities and the like that are written elsewhere in the materials even when they do match the general rule your clinging to.
I'm not following what you're claiming doesn't match in a relevant way.
it's distinctly different. These Differences are Important in the way the game is written.
Are they? Again, please provide the text.
Recapping:
There is a general rule Jounichi and I both gave you specifying that the damage roll for an attack with a weapon adds your ability modifier.
The rule in question does not discuss "weapon attacks", and neither does any other rule anyone in this conversation has brought up.
You have asserted that "weapon attacks" are nonetheless contextually relevant, but you have not explained why.
You have also attacked me personally over beliefs you have asserted I hold, but I think we can all agree my personal beliefs hold no weight here.
You appear to have conceded that this is the general rule.
TWF has a specific rule stating that the bonus action attack does not add your ability modifier.
I don't think you've explicitly conceded this point, but as you haven't discussed it, I'm assuming you also concede that this is the specific rule for TWF.
You claim PAM has a specific rule stating that it does not add your ability modifier, but you have yet to provide it.
Not sure why you want to press the point when it's abundantly clear that the BA attack gets the modifier.
This proves nothing. A 6 year old Tweet that has never made it into the official Sage Advice PDF's Nor Errata does not make me wrong.
Not Sure why your acting like it does all of a sudden. I happen to know that you know it doesn't actually prove anything.
It wasn't something really in question, so it wasn't necessary for the official errata.
apparantly it was for somebody. Or they wouldn't have asked through unnofficial channels for an answer.
And there are a bunch of things that many people would classify as "not in question" that have made it into the official sage advice pdf's.
If the question is asked enough, sure, it will make it into the errata.
But this didn't. It was never really in question.
Its also how the feat works in beyond.
There is literally no evidence to assume it doesn't apply the ability modifier like any other weapon attack that doesn't explicitly say it isn't included.
Not sure why you want to press the point when it's abundantly clear that the BA attack gets the modifier.
This proves nothing. A 6 year old Tweet that has never made it into the official Sage Advice PDF's Nor Errata does not make me wrong.
Not Sure why your acting like it does all of a sudden. I happen to know that you know it doesn't actually prove anything.
It wasn't something really in question, so it wasn't necessary for the official errata.
apparantly it was for somebody. Or they wouldn't have asked through unnofficial channels for an answer.
And there are a bunch of things that many people would classify as "not in question" that have made it into the official sage advice pdf's.
If the question is asked enough, sure, it will make it into the errata.
But this didn't. It was never really in question.
Its also how the feat works in beyond.
There is literally no evidence to assume it doesn't apply the ability modifier like any other weapon attack that doesn't explicitly say it isn't included.
Exactly it's very very clear how it works....
So much so that JC didn't even have to say much on it... Which is rare.
You have literally 0 evidence or even the beginning of what could be considered evidence to the contrary.
Not sure why you want to press the point when it's abundantly clear that the BA attack gets the modifier.
This proves nothing. A 6 year old Tweet that has never made it into the official Sage Advice PDF's Nor Errata does not make me wrong.
Not Sure why your acting like it does all of a sudden. I happen to know that you know it doesn't actually prove anything.
It wasn't something really in question, so it wasn't necessary for the official errata.
apparantly it was for somebody. Or they wouldn't have asked through unnofficial channels for an answer.
And there are a bunch of things that many people would classify as "not in question" that have made it into the official sage advice pdf's.
If the question is asked enough, sure, it will make it into the errata.
But this didn't. It was never really in question.
Its also how the feat works in beyond.
There is literally no evidence to assume it doesn't apply the ability modifier like any other weapon attack that doesn't explicitly say it isn't included.
Exactly it's very very clear how it works....
So much so that JC didn't even have to say much on it... Which is rare.
You have literally 0 evidence or even the beginning of what could be considered evidence to the contrary.
I gave you lots of evidence. You just don't like any of it.
As for JC. It's not true for him to give short answers. A lot of his answers are actually short and plenty of them cause more confusion. Even some of his longer answers are known for doing such.
Your only choosing it because your giving it faux official weight to support your stance as reasons why nothing that I've said and none of the evidence whether circumstantial or even exacting don't actually apply. Despite the fact that there is a bunch of it.
The Argument that things only make it into things like the Sage Advice PDF's that are actually official or Errata only based upon it actually being asked alot is also not true. Some things that made errata were done before people really asked and some things in the Sage Advice were never really asked more than once but still made it into the Sage advice.
Your using false equivalence as proof and nothing more.
Not sure why you want to press the point when it's abundantly clear that the BA attack gets the modifier.
This proves nothing. A 6 year old Tweet that has never made it into the official Sage Advice PDF's Nor Errata does not make me wrong.
Not Sure why your acting like it does all of a sudden. I happen to know that you know it doesn't actually prove anything.
It wasn't something really in question, so it wasn't necessary for the official errata.
apparantly it was for somebody. Or they wouldn't have asked through unnofficial channels for an answer.
And there are a bunch of things that many people would classify as "not in question" that have made it into the official sage advice pdf's.
If the question is asked enough, sure, it will make it into the errata.
But this didn't. It was never really in question.
Its also how the feat works in beyond.
There is literally no evidence to assume it doesn't apply the ability modifier like any other weapon attack that doesn't explicitly say it isn't included.
Exactly it's very very clear how it works....
So much so that JC didn't even have to say much on it... Which is rare.
You have literally 0 evidence or even the beginning of what could be considered evidence to the contrary.
I gave you lots of evidence. You just don't like any of it.
As for JC. It's not true for him to give short answers. A lot of his answers are actually short and plenty of them cause more confusion. Even some of his longer answers are known for doing such.
Your only choosing it because your giving it faux official weight to support your stance as reasons why nothing that I've said and none of the evidence whether circumstantial or even exacting don't actually apply. Despite the fact that there is a bunch of it.
The Argument that things only make it into things like the Sage Advice PDF's that are actually official or Errata only based upon it actually being asked alot is also not true. Some things that made errata were done before people really asked and some things in the Sage Advice were never really asked more than once but still made it into the Sage advice.
Your using false equivalence as proof and nothing more.
I gave you lots of evidence. You just don't like any of it.
As for JC. It's not true for him to give short answers. A lot of his answers are actually short and plenty of them cause more confusion. Even some of his longer answers are known for doing such.
Your only choosing it because your giving it faux official weight to support your stance as reasons why nothing that I've said and none of the evidence whether circumstantial or even exacting don't actually apply. Despite the fact that there is a bunch of it.
The Argument that things only make it into things like the Sage Advice PDF's that are actually official or Errata only based upon it actually being asked alot is also not true. Some things that made errata were done before people really asked and some things in the Sage Advice were never really asked more than once but still made it into the Sage advice.
Your using false equivalence as proof and nothing more.
There's some real irony you accusing us all of avoiding evidence....
Nothing sys I'm mistaken. Your trying to rely on one not all that credible tweet from 6 years ago based upon the fact that it came from somebody that worked on the game. Even though it's been made clear that nothing said on his twitter is actually official.
And one General Rule. That not only can be but is over written in several different fashions by several different things.
Which doesn't actually say that PAM does what you want it to I might add. Nor Does it address any of the ways of the language of the book and the language of PAM itself actually contradict your attempts to do so. Which has never actually been addressed or refuted, or proven to be different than I said it was, by anybody telling me that I'm wrong in this entire thread. Not one Person has actually addressed it. What I have said about the language issues has only tried to be dodged by making a claim to a rule in a way that effectively says that general beats specific despite the Game being Written in a format that says anything but that.
Not one of you has actually Addressed the Way PAM is written in that PAM itself says it is not a primary attack. That it's written using language that it is not simply a specific alteration to a general attack. Or that Other Abilities that do actually meet the general rule that should not need to actually do so by your own thinking actually do state the ability modifier to the damage as a matter of course regardless and have done so for the life of the game.
maybe you should try actually addressing some of these things before claiming they don't exist. Otherwise I'm not the one ignoring them.
But you haven't addressed these things at all in any real capacity.
I gave you lots of evidence. You just don't like any of it.
As for JC. It's not true for him to give short answers. A lot of his answers are actually short and plenty of them cause more confusion. Even some of his longer answers are known for doing such.
Your only choosing it because your giving it faux official weight to support your stance as reasons why nothing that I've said and none of the evidence whether circumstantial or even exacting don't actually apply. Despite the fact that there is a bunch of it.
The Argument that things only make it into things like the Sage Advice PDF's that are actually official or Errata only based upon it actually being asked alot is also not true. Some things that made errata were done before people really asked and some things in the Sage Advice were never really asked more than once but still made it into the Sage advice.
Your using false equivalence as proof and nothing more.
There's some real irony you accusing us all of avoiding evidence....
Nothing sys I'm mistaken. Your trying to rely on one not all that credible tweet from 6 years ago based upon the fact that it came from somebody that worked on the game. Even though it's been made clear that nothing said on his twitter is actually official.
And one General Rule. That not only can be but is over written in several different fashions by several different things.
Which doesn't actually say that PAM does what you want it to I might add. Nor Does it address any of the ways of the language of the book and the language of PAM itself actually contradict your attempts to do so. Which has never actually been addressed or refuted, or proven to be different than I said it was, by anybody telling me that I'm wrong in this entire thread. Not one Person has actually addressed it. What I have said about the language issues has only tried to be dodged by making a claim to a rule in a way that effectively says that general beats specific despite the Game being Written in a format that says anything but that.
Not one of you has actually Addressed the Way PAM is written in that PAM itself says it is not a primary attack. That it's written using language that it is not simply a specific alteration to a general attack. Or that Other Abilities that do actually meet the general rule that should not need to actually do so by your own thinking actually do state the ability modifier to the damage as a matter of course regardless and have done so for the life of the game.
maybe you should try actually addressing some of these things before claiming they don't exist. Otherwise I'm not the one ignoring them.
But you haven't addressed these things at all in any real capacity.
What rule says anything about "primary attacks?" You're just making up a rule to make polearm master not apply the modifier damage.
There is only one situation in all the rules where such a thing exists, and its just for two weapon fighting. Hitting someone with the same weapon isn't two weapon fighting.
I gave you lots of evidence. You just don't like any of it.
If that was true, we'd have something to disagree with, but you've provided us with nothing beyond your assertions. We've quoted actual rules at you, and you've admitted the rules say what we say they do, but you haven't quoted any rules to back up any of your claims.
Your only choosing it because your giving it faux official weight to support your stance as reasons why nothing that I've said and none of the evidence whether circumstantial or even exacting don't actually apply. Despite the fact that there is a bunch of it.
Again you impugn us without cause. If you provided us with any evidence, then maybe we'd dispute it, but you haven't.
I'm pretty tired of you coming at Jounichi, Optimus, and me with ad hominem attacks and assertions without corroborating evidence. I'll give you one more chance.
When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon's damage die for this attackis a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage.
I've just provided real, actual evidence that the PAM attack adds your ability modifier. If you want to dispute the claim, provide actual evidence or please stop arguing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm sorry, but no. The general rule for damage rolls is as follows contains the following:
The rules don't care if this is a melee weapon, a ranged weapon, a natural weapon, or even an improvised weapon.
And when making the Bonus Action attack granted by Polearm Master, you are expressly making a weapon attack. So this general rule applies. You don't need a specific rule stating so.
You have it exactly backwards. This is the general rule:
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier--the same modifier used for the attack roll--to the damage.
So unless a more specific rule tells you not to add your ability modifier to a damage roll for an attack with a weapon, you do. For example, two-weapon fighting specifically tells you not to.
I liked leaning in on the summon spells and have a 16 wisdom. The face stuff is fine but I mainly have it because he replaced the bard I had been running and we needed a decent face. I think the con save proficiency is probably the way to go for how I want to play him. Deadly archer who leverages spell casting beyond hunters mark in most fights
You are not Expressly making a weapon attack. Your Expressly making the separate specific attack that PAM allows you to make.
By your logic two weapon Fighting style Doesn't matter. Because I'm potentially always making expressly a weapon attack despite the fact that two Weapon Fighting says that these general rules that your saying work on all weapon attacks no matter what don't work.
Your Forcing the General onto the Specific. Your not Allowing the Specific to take Precedence. PAM is the Specific and it's not expressly a general weapon attack. It is a specific attack as purely defined by PAM under the specific conditions that PAM says it's available. That is all. PAM just happens to say in it's description. That it's specifically not a Primary Weapon Attack that has the specific characteristics of doing 1d4 damage of a bludgeoning nature.
And If you go look at PAM it indeed says that it is not a primary attack. Otherwise it would not need the words "uses the same Modifier as the Primary Attack" It does not say use the Same modifier for Damage as the weapon attack. it does not say it is the same thing as the Primary Weapon Attack except whatever else. It's Saying quite Specifically that it is not in Fact the Primary attack. It is telling you the Value of the Attack Roll. It is telling you specifically that the Damage is 1d4 and that it does Bludgeoning Damage. No matter what the Actual Weapon Does. It superscedes all of those details in the Feat.
It makes itself blatantly obvious on what it's doing and we just never paid attention to it. We just glanced through and applied everything that we always do and nobody has really called attention to it up until this point. As I said. Even I didn't realize what it said for the longest time. Everything about the bonus Action attack is written exactly in terms of "This is what It is, this is how it works, and this is what it does." It does not actually make room for anything more than that in the way it's worded. It is not worded in a "change normal value's to these things" wording that all other rules and abilities in the game use.
Yeah, without knowing the rest of your build, Resilient Con seems pretty fitting.
Making a "weapon attack" is contextually irrelevant. The rule we quoted to you states that it applies to all attacks made with weapons. PAM's attacks are made with a weapon.
no. it's not. A Weapon Attack is an Attack Usually Made with a Weapon Yes. But it is not any attack made with Weapons. Nor are all attacks made without weapons necessarily not Weapon Attacks.
I already pointed out one Way that a Weapon attack does not actually count as a weapon attack for purposes of the Damage Modifier. But there is also Various spells that make weapons that don't actually count as weapon attacks either. There are touch attacks form various creatures and stuff as well as attacks from classes that do not count as weapon attacks . And there are things that are not made with weapons that do count as weapon attacks.
But even more than all of that. There are attacks that can be made from various weapons that are actually either the casting of spells or other effects that function like casting spells. Yet they aren't CAsting a Spell Either. They most often come under Activating a Magic item. Magical Staves are the most obvious version of this because they are almost all by default both weapon and spell casting focus at the same time with activate an item functions built into them.
Shadow Blade is a fine example of a spell that creates a weapon to make weapon attacks but opposite of that Blade of Disaster is a summoned weapon that makes purely spell attacks. Sun Soul Monks create Melee Spell attacks from their fists. Which is a weapon. Astral Self Monks can make weapon attacks entirely without a weapon but through a class feature that allows them to make unarmed attacks.
Even things like Soul Knife Rogue which function on the mental creation of a weapon long enough to make a weapon attack actually makes a clarification that the Modifier is to be added to damage as well.
PAM is actually notable in the fact that it doesn't make the distinction even though so many other things that should fall under the general rule for the same reasons expressed in this thread do make the distinction. It's one of the only places that is a specific attack that you could claim is a weapon attack that is provided that does not in fact mention adding the Attribute Damage. That's true all the way from the base materials all the way up to Tasha's. That's not them having switched the language they use. it's the same kind of language in almost all instances that is consistant for years. That's just another way the language is significant and shows that PAM does not work the way we've been treating it for so long.
It's not contextually irrelevant. It's contextually irrelevant to you because you do not like what the alternative could mean. The Rule is General. it can, and is, over written in a number of places by specifics. That is the full reality of it. And the full reality is that the Specifics Written do not agree with you.
Nor does the way it is written actually agree with you. It may suck. you may not like it. You may choose to ignore it at your table. I'd been doing it without even realizing it for years because I just never noticed. But PAM does not fit the general with the way it is written. Nor does it match the way other abilities and the like that are written elsewhere in the materials even when they do match the general rule your clinging to. it's distinctly different. These Differences are Important in the way the game is written.
Ok, so why does it matter if it's a weapon attack? You tell me.
What I like or don't like is irrelevant here.
Which rule? Are you conceding that the general rule is that a damage roll made for an attack with a weapon uses your ability modifier?
Extremely true. I gave an example of this happening. You did not.
Ok, please show me the specific rule stating PAM does not include ability modifier. I showed you the general rule stating it does, and you seem to have conceded that the general rule I showed you is really the general rule.
Ok, please provide the text backing up your claim.
Yes, this is correct. My opinion on the matter doesn't matter.
Also correct.
Again, please provide the text backing up your claim. Where is the text that twf has, specifying that the ability modifier doesn't apply, in the PAM rules block?
I'm not following what you're claiming doesn't match in a relevant way.
Are they? Again, please provide the text.
Recapping:
Beyond, the rules, Jeremy Crawford (https://www.sageadvice.eu/polearm-feat-and-strength/)
All say your very wrong.
Not sure why you want to press the point when it's abundantly clear that the BA attack gets the modifier.
This proves nothing. A 6 year old Tweet that has never made it into the official Sage Advice PDF's Nor Errata does not make me wrong.
Not Sure why your acting like it does all of a sudden. I happen to know that you know it doesn't actually prove anything.
It wasn't something really in question, so it wasn't necessary for the official errata.
apparantly it was for somebody. Or they wouldn't have asked through unnofficial channels for an answer.
And there are a bunch of things that many people would classify as "not in question" that have made it into the official sage advice pdf's.
If the question is asked enough, sure, it will make it into the errata.
But this didn't. It was never really in question.
Its also how the feat works in beyond.
There is literally no evidence to assume it doesn't apply the ability modifier like any other weapon attack that doesn't explicitly say it isn't included.
Exactly it's very very clear how it works....
So much so that JC didn't even have to say much on it... Which is rare.
You have literally 0 evidence or even the beginning of what could be considered evidence to the contrary.
I gave you lots of evidence. You just don't like any of it.
As for JC. It's not true for him to give short answers. A lot of his answers are actually short and plenty of them cause more confusion. Even some of his longer answers are known for doing such.
Your only choosing it because your giving it faux official weight to support your stance as reasons why nothing that I've said and none of the evidence whether circumstantial or even exacting don't actually apply. Despite the fact that there is a bunch of it.
The Argument that things only make it into things like the Sage Advice PDF's that are actually official or Errata only based upon it actually being asked alot is also not true. Some things that made errata were done before people really asked and some things in the Sage Advice were never really asked more than once but still made it into the Sage advice.
Your using false equivalence as proof and nothing more.
Except literally everything saying you're mistaken?
There's some real irony you accusing us all of avoiding evidence....
Nothing sys I'm mistaken. Your trying to rely on one not all that credible tweet from 6 years ago based upon the fact that it came from somebody that worked on the game. Even though it's been made clear that nothing said on his twitter is actually official.
And one General Rule. That not only can be but is over written in several different fashions by several different things.
Which doesn't actually say that PAM does what you want it to I might add. Nor Does it address any of the ways of the language of the book and the language of PAM itself actually contradict your attempts to do so. Which has never actually been addressed or refuted, or proven to be different than I said it was, by anybody telling me that I'm wrong in this entire thread. Not one Person has actually addressed it. What I have said about the language issues has only tried to be dodged by making a claim to a rule in a way that effectively says that general beats specific despite the Game being Written in a format that says anything but that.
Not one of you has actually Addressed the Way PAM is written in that PAM itself says it is not a primary attack. That it's written using language that it is not simply a specific alteration to a general attack. Or that Other Abilities that do actually meet the general rule that should not need to actually do so by your own thinking actually do state the ability modifier to the damage as a matter of course regardless and have done so for the life of the game.
maybe you should try actually addressing some of these things before claiming they don't exist. Otherwise I'm not the one ignoring them.
But you haven't addressed these things at all in any real capacity.
What rule says anything about "primary attacks?" You're just making up a rule to make polearm master not apply the modifier damage.
There is only one situation in all the rules where such a thing exists, and its just for two weapon fighting. Hitting someone with the same weapon isn't two weapon fighting.
Its not some generally applicable concept.
If that was true, we'd have something to disagree with, but you've provided us with nothing beyond your assertions. We've quoted actual rules at you, and you've admitted the rules say what we say they do, but you haven't quoted any rules to back up any of your claims.
Again you impugn us without cause. If you provided us with any evidence, then maybe we'd dispute it, but you haven't.
I'm pretty tired of you coming at Jounichi, Optimus, and me with ad hominem attacks and assertions without corroborating evidence. I'll give you one more chance.
When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier--the same modifier used for the attack roll--to the damage.
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
I've just provided real, actual evidence that the PAM attack adds your ability modifier. If you want to dispute the claim, provide actual evidence or please stop arguing.