I have the original version of the PHB and I heard somewhere that there was an errata allowing the use of spears with the pole arm master feat. can anyone confirm this?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Polearm Master (p. 168). A second sentence has been added to the first benefit: “This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack.” Both instances of “or quarterstaff” have been changed to “quarterstaff, or spear.”
Interesting note: when a monk uses Polearm Master with a spear or quarterstaff, they can use their Martial Arts die for the damage instead of the feat's d4. The feat says "the weapon's damage die is...", and Martial Arts specifically lets you ignore/replace the damage die.
This isn't as big for them as it would be for other classes since monks can already bonus-action attack with Martial Arts in the same situation, but it does allow you to gain a third attack with any powerful magic weapon modifiers you may have, such as Flametongue or the like.
Interesting note: when a monk uses Polearm Master with a spear or quarterstaff, they can use their Martial Arts die for the damage instead of the feat's d4. The feat says "the weapon's damage die is...", and Martial Arts specifically lets you ignore/replace the damage die.
This isn't as big for them as it would be for other classes since monks can already bonus-action attack with Martial Arts in the same situation, but it does allow you to gain a third attack with any powerful magic weapon modifiers you may have, such as Flametongue or the like.
Just make sure that your DM interprets that the same way. This is probably mostly necessary with Kensei, but paths that have abilities that activate off of unarmed strikes (like Agile Parry) may be seen as conflicting with the word only that is in the language of the bonus attack from PAM. There is always the possibility that the DM would also interpret the PAM bonus attack as specifically setting the attack to 1d4 bludgeoning damage, implying that would be the final damage after any effects that might change it, or that the magical bonuses only apply to the "other" end of the weapon. I'm probably missing 36 other possible interpretations that could ruin this for someone, but it does come down to having that conversation with your DM so that you know how the interaction will work. That conversation should probably be had with any effect that comes from an item, ability, or spell outside your single class abilities just to be safe.
That said, knowing that it's a possibility should be exciting.
That's fair. And yeah, a PAM bonus strike doesn't qualify for any sort of 'Unarmed' stuff like Agile Parry. But man - wouldn't it be cool for the traditional quarterstaff monk build? I could see a Yin-Yang-y monk with a special "Duality" quarterstaff - fire damage on one end, cold damage on the other. Pick which end to attack with on your main attack, then whack 'em with the other end for your PAM bonus strike. Wuxia as heck, and frankly only mild homebrew to make the stick work.
That's definitely something that I would allow if the concept was brought to me beforehand. Even if it was mid campaign, just catch me after and talk about the concept. I'd probably make the player choose between the all offensive PAM version that doesn't allow Agile Parry or something similar and the more defensive option that uses the martial arts version just to give the distinction meaning and consequences (similar to Reckless Attack for Barbarians, though only in the offense vs defense aspect).
Edit: Plus, it doesn't completely make that part of PAM outdated at level 5. I'm not sure if I'd allow the martial arts die to replace the d4 completely, but I'd allow for the magical modifiers to transfer to the opposite end with non quarterstaff options unless the description of the weapon suggested that it shouldn't (at which time, I'd probably still allow for the +1 to +3).
It's easy to say yes to a vacuum idea since there aren't other factors to consider.
In my mind there's no conflict. PAM lets you make a d4 damage die attack with the blunt end of the stick, which Martial Arts lets you replace the the MA die because it's an attack made with the monk weapon. Monks also get a bonus-action unarmed attack they can use with their nekkid monkey paws, which works with their various unarmed features. Two distinct bonus actions, which the player gets to choose between on their turn. A PAM attack with the hind end of the stick doesn't qualify as an Unarmed attack, but it does qualify as a martial-arts attack.
You're right, it mostly ends up being a choice of going more offensive by utilizing weapon modifiers, or more defensive by keeping the hands unencumbered for stuff like Agile Parry. But frankly I like that distinction and think it's a cool option to give your monk players.
In my mind there's no conflict. PAM lets you make a d4 damage die attack with the blunt end of the stick, which Martial Arts lets you replace the the MA die because it's an attack made with the monk weapon. Monks also get a bonus-action unarmed attack they can use with their nekkid monkey paws, which works with their various unarmed features. Two distinct bonus actions, which the player gets to choose between on their turn. A PAM attack with the hind end of the stick doesn't qualify as an Unarmed attack, but it does qualify as a martial-arts attack.
You're right, it mostly ends up being a choice of going more offensive by utilizing weapon modifiers, or more defensive by keeping the hands unencumbered for stuff like Agile Parry. But frankly I like that distinction and think it's a cool option to give your monk players.
That last paragraph is mainly where I'd be concerned about the distinction. They can get the bonus action regardless so that point is moot. The distinguishing between features by allowing different things to be activated is the main difference for me, which seems like the reason that you like the idea too. I'm currently playing a barb (the reason that reckless came up) and that choice between advantage or no advantage and the payoffs is what makes that feature fun for me. Same as going greataxe vs handaxe and shield vs dual handaxes. There are different payoffs for each setup and that makes for fun roleplay interactions for me.
Having multiple bonus action triggers is pointless if they aren't distinct in some way. The flavor of the PAM trigger was offensive to begin with so having an offensive payoff for it makes sense. When I get some time, I'll have to run the numbers to see what the difference is for each option to see what would make sense for each.
Crap... got sidetracked again. Spears and PAM, yes they work together now. You can even use spear and shield for a more defensive approach to a PAM attack or Spear two handed from [wprop]Versatile[wprop] for a shorter range more offensive approach than halberd or glaive, since the pike only interacts with the OA portion of the feat. Quarterstaff behaves exactly like the spear with the exception of the damage.
As an aside, monks can't use shields with their major features so a quarterstaff wielding monk should probably just two-hand it unless they want to dual wield for some reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have the original version of the PHB and I heard somewhere that there was an errata allowing the use of spears with the pole arm master feat. can anyone confirm this?
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
why thank you good sir
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Interesting note: when a monk uses Polearm Master with a spear or quarterstaff, they can use their Martial Arts die for the damage instead of the feat's d4. The feat says "the weapon's damage die is...", and Martial Arts specifically lets you ignore/replace the damage die.
This isn't as big for them as it would be for other classes since monks can already bonus-action attack with Martial Arts in the same situation, but it does allow you to gain a third attack with any powerful magic weapon modifiers you may have, such as Flametongue or the like.
Please do not contact or message me.
Just make sure that your DM interprets that the same way. This is probably mostly necessary with Kensei, but paths that have abilities that activate off of unarmed strikes (like Agile Parry) may be seen as conflicting with the word only that is in the language of the bonus attack from PAM. There is always the possibility that the DM would also interpret the PAM bonus attack as specifically setting the attack to 1d4 bludgeoning damage, implying that would be the final damage after any effects that might change it, or that the magical bonuses only apply to the "other" end of the weapon. I'm probably missing 36 other possible interpretations that could ruin this for someone, but it does come down to having that conversation with your DM so that you know how the interaction will work. That conversation should probably be had with any effect that comes from an item, ability, or spell outside your single class abilities just to be safe.
That said, knowing that it's a possibility should be exciting.
That's fair. And yeah, a PAM bonus strike doesn't qualify for any sort of 'Unarmed' stuff like Agile Parry. But man - wouldn't it be cool for the traditional quarterstaff monk build? I could see a Yin-Yang-y monk with a special "Duality" quarterstaff - fire damage on one end, cold damage on the other. Pick which end to attack with on your main attack, then whack 'em with the other end for your PAM bonus strike. Wuxia as heck, and frankly only mild homebrew to make the stick work.
Please do not contact or message me.
That's definitely something that I would allow if the concept was brought to me beforehand. Even if it was mid campaign, just catch me after and talk about the concept. I'd probably make the player choose between the all offensive PAM version that doesn't allow Agile Parry or something similar and the more defensive option that uses the martial arts version just to give the distinction meaning and consequences (similar to Reckless Attack for Barbarians, though only in the offense vs defense aspect).
Edit: Plus, it doesn't completely make that part of PAM outdated at level 5. I'm not sure if I'd allow the martial arts die to replace the d4 completely, but I'd allow for the magical modifiers to transfer to the opposite end with non quarterstaff options unless the description of the weapon suggested that it shouldn't (at which time, I'd probably still allow for the +1 to +3).
It's easy to say yes to a vacuum idea since there aren't other factors to consider.
In my mind there's no conflict. PAM lets you make a d4 damage die attack with the blunt end of the stick, which Martial Arts lets you replace the the MA die because it's an attack made with the monk weapon. Monks also get a bonus-action unarmed attack they can use with their nekkid monkey paws, which works with their various unarmed features. Two distinct bonus actions, which the player gets to choose between on their turn. A PAM attack with the hind end of the stick doesn't qualify as an Unarmed attack, but it does qualify as a martial-arts attack.
You're right, it mostly ends up being a choice of going more offensive by utilizing weapon modifiers, or more defensive by keeping the hands unencumbered for stuff like Agile Parry. But frankly I like that distinction and think it's a cool option to give your monk players.
Please do not contact or message me.
That last paragraph is mainly where I'd be concerned about the distinction. They can get the bonus action regardless so that point is moot. The distinguishing between features by allowing different things to be activated is the main difference for me, which seems like the reason that you like the idea too. I'm currently playing a barb (the reason that reckless came up) and that choice between advantage or no advantage and the payoffs is what makes that feature fun for me. Same as going greataxe vs handaxe and shield vs dual handaxes. There are different payoffs for each setup and that makes for fun roleplay interactions for me.
Having multiple bonus action triggers is pointless if they aren't distinct in some way. The flavor of the PAM trigger was offensive to begin with so having an offensive payoff for it makes sense. When I get some time, I'll have to run the numbers to see what the difference is for each option to see what would make sense for each.
Crap... got sidetracked again. Spears and PAM, yes they work together now. You can even use spear and shield for a more defensive approach to a PAM attack or Spear two handed from [wprop]Versatile[wprop] for a shorter range more offensive approach than halberd or glaive, since the pike only interacts with the OA portion of the feat. Quarterstaff behaves exactly like the spear with the exception of the damage.
As an aside, monks can't use shields with their major features so a quarterstaff wielding monk should probably just two-hand it unless they want to dual wield for some reason.