It's not about a fluff description. Any pole-arm - glaive, halberd, pike, etc. - are designed to do damage/be fought with the bladed end, not the butt end. In other words: the butt end isn't primarily intended as a damage-dealing part of it, any more than the steel toe of a work boot is primarily intended to hurt someone if they're kicked with it.
And it's about the cumulative advantage than extra 2d6 damage gives over the course of the life of a character.
It's a magic weapon. Just allow the coolness of the magic applying to any attacks made with it. It's not about reading it like a legal contract, it's about allowing the coolness of the magical weapon. They're supposed to be cool, unique, and game changing. Let's not quibble over which specific part of a weapon the cool magic applies to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
"Seems pretty obvious" that if the effect wasn't intended to work with the bonus action attack granted by PAM or other abilities, it would have been written in a way that specifically excluded them.
The most obvious explanation here is that the interaction didn't occur to them when they rewrote the entry. Not that it was designed to interact with PAM
They could have easily written PAM to state that the bonus attack didn't benefit from spells and special abilities that added weapon damage.
But that also wasn't the intention. PAM and hex, for instance, are designed to work together
The Flame-Tongue weapon had zero interaction with PAM in the 2014 rules, because the only weapons that could benefit from that enchantment were swords. Why is it so difficult to wrap your head around the idea that they just opened it up to all weapons in 2024 and re-wrote the description to account for that, while forgetting about one very specific, niche interaction with a feat?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Why is it so difficult to wrap your head around the idea that they just opened it up to all weapons in 2024 and re-wrote the description to account for that, while forgetting about one very specific, niche interaction with a feat?
It seems really clear to be that's what happened. We saw plenty of this kind of stuff with the 2014 rules set. While I'm sure they playtested the 2024 changes, they likely didn't playtest everything, nor did they anticipate this miniscule bit of reading the fine print.
The particulars about how any weapon are constructed is deliberately meant to be an abstraction. The 2014 PHB itself recommends using the club mechanics to portray nunchaku despite them being pretty different weapons irl. Do not look to D&D for realism, you will be sorely disappointed. Better to just acknowledge that it is a game, and a fantasy game at that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You couldn't get a flame tongue polearm in 2014, but you could get a simple +X weapon, or a dragon slayer or vicious weapon, so "what bonuses apply to the pole strike" was certainly relevant even in 2014. Most likely the answer is either "all bonuses apply" or "no bonuses apply"; D&D Beyond seems to use the second but I suspect it's actually supposed to be the first.
The particulars about how any weapon are constructed is deliberately meant to be an abstraction. The 2014 PHB itself recommends using the club mechanics to portray nunchaku despite them being pretty different weapons irl. Do not look to D&D for realism, you will be sorely disappointed. Better to just acknowledge that it is a game, and a fantasy game at that.
Oh, c'mon now, no need to go there. It's not "realism" to think that when the head of your magic pike is engulfed in flames, it shouldn't have any effect on what happens when you bonk someone with the other end of it. If you want your magic pike to have flames spurt out of it anywhere at any time, go right ahead. Cross-check some with it and have flames suddenly spring up between your hands as you grip the shaft. I genuinely don't care
I don't even think anyone here is even disagreeing that the extra damage when PAM and Flame-Tongue cross paths is RAW. Some of us just think it's silly
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You couldn't get a flame tongue polearm in 2014, but you could get a simple +X weapon, or a dragon slayer or vicious weapon, so "what bonuses apply to the pole strike" was certainly relevant even in 2014. Most likely the answer is either "all bonuses apply" or "no bonuses apply"; D&D Beyond seems to use the second but I suspect it's actually supposed to be the first.
Actually Dragon Slayers were limited to swords in 2014 too. But it's a fair point in general
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't even think anyone here is even disagreeing that the extra damage when PAM and Flame-Tongue cross paths is RAW. Some of us just think it's silly
It is not an unreasonable interpretation to say that PAM makes the butt end of the specified weapons a “damage-dealing part.” Both sides each have a good point. It comes down to individual interpretation. I think the only thing is to be consistent so if flame tongue does not apply to the butt end of a weapon for a character with PAM, then neither should the straight +1, +2 or +3 you might see on these weapons. I’ve seen that played both ways.
I think one reason people are tempted to limit what the secondary attack of PAM can do is because the feat has always been somewhat overtuned -- either Reactive Strike or Reactive Strike (or some odd hybrid, such as "You may ready a polearm attack against someone entering your reach as a bonus action") would be a bit more appropriate as a single feat.
It is not an unreasonable interpretation to say that PAM makes the butt end of the specified weapons a “damage-dealing part.” Both sides each have a good point. It comes down to individual interpretation. I think the only thing is to be consistent so if flame tongue does not apply to the butt end of a weapon for a character with PAM, then neither should the straight +1, +2 or +3 you might see on these weapons. I’ve seen that played both ways.
I think the assumption is that when a magic weapon is enchanted, the entire weapon is considered magical. But the entire weapon, grip or handle included, is not engulfed in flame.
I don't even think anyone here is even disagreeing that the extra damage when PAM and Flame-Tongue cross paths is RAW. Some of us just think it's silly
In which case it's still the Rule of Cool, you just don't happen to think it's cool. Coming to a consensus about what is cool enough for the table is what mini session 0's are for.
"Seems pretty obvious" that if the effect wasn't intended to work with the bonus action attack granted by PAM or other abilities, it would have been written in a way that specifically excluded them.
The most obvious explanation here is that the interaction didn't occur to them when they rewrote the entry. Not that it was designed to interact with PAM
They could have easily written PAM to state that the bonus attack didn't benefit from spells and special abilities that added weapon damage.
But that also wasn't the intention. PAM and hex, for instance, are designed to work together
The Flame-Tongue weapon had zero interaction with PAM in the 2014 rules, because the only weapons that could benefit from that enchantment were swords. Why is it so difficult to wrap your head around the idea that they just opened it up to all weapons in 2024 and re-wrote the description to account for that, while forgetting about one very specific, niche interaction with a feat?
My point is that if Hex, and Elemental Weapon, and Improved Divine Smite, and any number of other things that boosted a weapon's damage in the 2014 rules did work with PAM, I absolutely don't see what's so special about Flame Tongue that it should be specifically excluded.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's not about a fluff description. Any pole-arm - glaive, halberd, pike, etc. - are designed to do damage/be fought with the bladed end, not the butt end. In other words: the butt end isn't primarily intended as a damage-dealing part of it, any more than the steel toe of a work boot is primarily intended to hurt someone if they're kicked with it.
And it's about the cumulative advantage than extra 2d6 damage gives over the course of the life of a character.
It's a magic weapon. Just allow the coolness of the magic applying to any attacks made with it. It's not about reading it like a legal contract, it's about allowing the coolness of the magical weapon. They're supposed to be cool, unique, and game changing. Let's not quibble over which specific part of a weapon the cool magic applies to.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So the pommel of a vorpal sword can be used to decapitate a creature?
There’s no feat that enables an attack with the pommel of a vorpal sword whereas PAM is a thing.
Might, if they give me a good enough description of how it was done. It's about what's cool.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
But that also wasn't the intention. PAM and hex, for instance, are designed to work together
The Flame-Tongue weapon had zero interaction with PAM in the 2014 rules, because the only weapons that could benefit from that enchantment were swords. Why is it so difficult to wrap your head around the idea that they just opened it up to all weapons in 2024 and re-wrote the description to account for that, while forgetting about one very specific, niche interaction with a feat?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
RAF definitely to deal extra 2d6 fire damage when Polearm Master strike with the opposite end of the Glaive's damaging part engulfed by Flame Tongue.
Again, your table, your game. I would absolutely not allow it. I understand and generally agree with the rule of cool but not without limits.
It seems really clear to be that's what happened. We saw plenty of this kind of stuff with the 2014 rules set. While I'm sure they playtested the 2024 changes, they likely didn't playtest everything, nor did they anticipate this miniscule bit of reading the fine print.
The particulars about how any weapon are constructed is deliberately meant to be an abstraction. The 2014 PHB itself recommends using the club mechanics to portray nunchaku despite them being pretty different weapons irl. Do not look to D&D for realism, you will be sorely disappointed. Better to just acknowledge that it is a game, and a fantasy game at that.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You couldn't get a flame tongue polearm in 2014, but you could get a simple +X weapon, or a dragon slayer or vicious weapon, so "what bonuses apply to the pole strike" was certainly relevant even in 2014. Most likely the answer is either "all bonuses apply" or "no bonuses apply"; D&D Beyond seems to use the second but I suspect it's actually supposed to be the first.
Oh, c'mon now, no need to go there. It's not "realism" to think that when the head of your magic pike is engulfed in flames, it shouldn't have any effect on what happens when you bonk someone with the other end of it. If you want your magic pike to have flames spurt out of it anywhere at any time, go right ahead. Cross-check some with it and have flames suddenly spring up between your hands as you grip the shaft. I genuinely don't care
I don't even think anyone here is even disagreeing that the extra damage when PAM and Flame-Tongue cross paths is RAW. Some of us just think it's silly
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Actually Dragon Slayers were limited to swords in 2014 too. But it's a fair point in general
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It is not an unreasonable interpretation to say that PAM makes the butt end of the specified weapons a “damage-dealing part.” Both sides each have a good point. It comes down to individual interpretation. I think the only thing is to be consistent so if flame tongue does not apply to the butt end of a weapon for a character with PAM, then neither should the straight +1, +2 or +3 you might see on these weapons. I’ve seen that played both ways.
I think one reason people are tempted to limit what the secondary attack of PAM can do is because the feat has always been somewhat overtuned -- either Reactive Strike or Reactive Strike (or some odd hybrid, such as "You may ready a polearm attack against someone entering your reach as a bonus action") would be a bit more appropriate as a single feat.
I think the assumption is that when a magic weapon is enchanted, the entire weapon is considered magical. But the entire weapon, grip or handle included, is not engulfed in flame.
In which case it's still the Rule of Cool, you just don't happen to think it's cool. Coming to a consensus about what is cool enough for the table is what mini session 0's are for.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Sure, sure. And to be clear: if that's what works at your table, you should do it.
My point is that if Hex, and Elemental Weapon, and Improved Divine Smite, and any number of other things that boosted a weapon's damage in the 2014 rules did work with PAM, I absolutely don't see what's so special about Flame Tongue that it should be specifically excluded.
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.