I love how often we get these discussion occur. English is a wonderful language for both saying things in exquisite detail and for saying things in such a way that multiple understandings are not only possible but to be expected based on prior concepts as I sad at the start. “ you either think that anything not specifically allowed is forbidden or that anything not specifically forbidden is allowed” and then when you find something vague or not covered in extreme detail you interpret it from your point of view. At least til you recognize your own bias - then you don’t get so upset when someone with the opposite bias argues with you. Have fun guys
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.
How do you tell people you've never read the Sage Advice Compendium without saying you've never read it?
Polearm Master
Can I add my Strength modifier to the damage of the bonus attack that Polearm Master gives me? Yes. If you have the feat and use the Attack action to attack with a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can also strike with the weapon’s opposite end as a bonus action. For that bonus attack, you add your ability modifier to the attack roll, as you do whenever you attack with that weapon, and if you hit, you add the same ability modifier to the damage roll, which is normal for weapon damage rolls (PH, 196).
A specific rule, such as the rule for two-weapon fighting (PH, 195), might break the general rule by telling you not to add your ability modifier to the damage. Polearm Master doesn’t have such a rule.
I think it's worth noting that this doesn't mention the spear, which means it's been in the SA compendium since before the feat was subject to that errata. And, funnily enough, this is the second time tonight that I've had to link to the SA Compendium over Polearm Master.
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.
How do you tell people you've never read the Sage Advice Compendium without saying you've never read it?
Polearm Master
Can I add my Strength modifier to the damage of the bonus attack that Polearm Master gives me? Yes. If you have the feat and use the Attack action to attack with a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can also strike with the weapon’s opposite end as a bonus action. For that bonus attack, you add your ability modifier to the attack roll, as you do whenever you attack with that weapon, and if you hit, you add the same ability modifier to the damage roll, which is normal for weapon damage rolls (PH, 196).
A specific rule, such as the rule for two-weapon fighting (PH, 195), might break the general rule by telling you not to add your ability modifier to the damage. Polearm Master doesn’t have such a rule.
I think it's worth noting that this doesn't mention the spear, which means it's been in the SAG compendium since before the feat was subject that errata. And funnily enough, this is the second time tonight that I've had to link to the SAG Compendium over Polearm Master.
The 1d4 from PAM is a function of the feat, not the weapon itself. I'm not convinced a DM would, or even should, allow it.
Rangers also have enough going on with their Bonus Action. They don't need yet another attack competing for it.
I mean, it wouldn't be overpowered.
And the ranger only has one other thing they normally want to use their bonus action for (hunter's mark). They might occassionally used a strike spell, but that is just a few times a day.
As we are now talking about how well it works in practice.
Just finished 11 levels of a spear and shield PAM gnome gloomy ranger who picked up PAM at 4th level. General process was first round get HM going and then do the full gloom stalker set of attacks. After that I would generally get the 1d4 attack about every other round. The reaction attack was probably a bit more useful and was really helpful against mobs to whittle away some HP.
It worked best from 4th - 7th, and then began to be less useful as creatures became more likely to drop requiring HM to get shifted with my bonus action. Also at this level the reaction attack (which almost never took advantage of HM) started to be come less useful. I think the reaction attack might work better with Fey Wanderer where hitting a non marked opponent still can get a damage boost.
As we are now talking about how well it works in practice.
Just finished 11 levels of a spear and shield PAM gnome gloomy ranger who picked up PAM at 4th level. General process was first round get HM going and then do the full gloom stalker set of attacks. After that I would generally get the 1d4 attack about every other round. The reaction attack was probably a bit more useful and was really helpful against mobs to whittle away some HP.
It worked best from 4th - 7th, and then began to be less useful as creatures became more likely to drop requiring HM to get shifted with my bonus action. Also at this level the reaction attack (which almost never took advantage of HM) started to be come less useful. I think the reaction attack might work better with Fey Wanderer where hitting a non marked opponent still can get a damage boost.
I feel that is the one people never talk about...getting another attack off turn is a big deal to me especially if you maximize the potential of it with stuff like Mobile feat.
You attack them on your turn then pull back slightly out of range. They come in and you get another attack as a reaction....or they avoid you altogether. Either way you are dictating how they act instead of letting them set the directive. It just seems very good to control the area around you.
Even without Sentinel there is definitely some battlefield control in the reaction attack. If you can pull warcaster in and a weapon cantrip then you can really have fun, but two feats with no ability adjustment is a bit much to be asking for unless you want to go Var Human or Custom Lineage.
Also the character had a level of arcana cleric. Bless is better than Hunter's Mark if you have lots of attacks. Bless and HM together is even more fun (but you need a friend to cast bless).
I love that I can go to my character sheet on Beyond and see the modifier on the damage. This debate is awesome.
I love how often we get these discussion occur. English is a wonderful language for both saying things in exquisite detail and for saying things in such a way that multiple understandings are not only possible but to be expected based on prior concepts as I sad at the start. “ you either think that anything not specifically allowed is forbidden or that anything not specifically forbidden is allowed” and then when you find something vague or not covered in extreme detail you interpret it from your point of view. At least til you recognize your own bias - then you don’t get so upset when someone with the opposite bias argues with you. Have fun guys
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
How do you tell people you've never read the Sage Advice Compendium without saying you've never read it?
I think it's worth noting that this doesn't mention the spear, which means it's been in the SA compendium since before the feat was subject to that errata. And, funnily enough, this is the second time tonight that I've had to link to the SA Compendium over Polearm Master.
Even mentions TWF especially.....oof
I mean, it wouldn't be overpowered.
And the ranger only has one other thing they normally want to use their bonus action for (hunter's mark). They might occassionally used a strike spell, but that is just a few times a day.
As we are now talking about how well it works in practice.
Just finished 11 levels of a spear and shield PAM gnome gloomy ranger who picked up PAM at 4th level. General process was first round get HM going and then do the full gloom stalker set of attacks. After that I would generally get the 1d4 attack about every other round. The reaction attack was probably a bit more useful and was really helpful against mobs to whittle away some HP.
It worked best from 4th - 7th, and then began to be less useful as creatures became more likely to drop requiring HM to get shifted with my bonus action. Also at this level the reaction attack (which almost never took advantage of HM) started to be come less useful. I think the reaction attack might work better with Fey Wanderer where hitting a non marked opponent still can get a damage boost.
I feel that is the one people never talk about...getting another attack off turn is a big deal to me especially if you maximize the potential of it with stuff like Mobile feat.
You attack them on your turn then pull back slightly out of range. They come in and you get another attack as a reaction....or they avoid you altogether. Either way you are dictating how they act instead of letting them set the directive. It just seems very good to control the area around you.
Even without Sentinel there is definitely some battlefield control in the reaction attack. If you can pull warcaster in and a weapon cantrip then you can really have fun, but two feats with no ability adjustment is a bit much to be asking for unless you want to go Var Human or Custom Lineage.
Also the character had a level of arcana cleric. Bless is better than Hunter's Mark if you have lots of attacks. Bless and HM together is even more fun (but you need a friend to cast bless).