You're correct. Opportunity attacks, whether regular ones or ones enabled by this trait, are always based on the enemy's movement. Otherwise this trait would be phrased as 'when you enter their reach'.
I'm with Diplomacy on this - definitely don't change how the feat works, but if the player took this feat because of their misunderstanding and doesn't want it anymore now that said misunderstanding has been cleared-up, let them change without any sort of penalty for doing so.
I'm with Diplomacy on this - definitely don't change how the feat works, but if the player took this feat because of their misunderstanding and doesn't want it anymore now that said misunderstanding has been cleared-up, let them change without any sort of penalty for doing so.
I actually don't agree with diplomacy on this. :D
I would say "probably" don't change how the feat works. Keeping in mind that it really doesn't effect overall gameplay (that much), your player will probably disproportionately enjoy getting the benefit of the "superfeat" and of course that Fun is rule number one. It is okay to intentionally make a bad ruling, as long as you hang a bell on the ruling, and it doesn't negatively impact the game... but then, I love screwing around with feats, class abilities and anything else. It's also worth noting that if he's burning his reaction during the move phase of combat, he's not using it otherwise. If his intent is to eventually get the Polearm Master/ Sentinal combo, he'll probably end up using it the 'proper' way most of the time anyway, or he'll end up wasting an ASI.
I'd be leery of allowing a reaction-attack while charging with Polearm on your turn. Given how movement works, you could easily have four attacks a turn by level 5, which can have unintended consequences. This kind of thing does matter.
"Given how movement works, you could easily have four attacks a turn by level 5, which can have unintended consequences."
Umm?
You get one reaction a turn not 4. Fighters/barbarians/paladins/rangers/etc can get 2 attacks. @ level 5. Dual wielding Long swords they can have 3. polearms are 2h so they would normally have 2. with the feat, they could get a 3rd, and they'd burn their reaction for any other purpose. "how movement works" is irrelevant.
"Given how movement works, you could easily have four attacks a turn by level 5, which can have unintended consequences."
Umm?
You get one reaction a turn not 4. Fighters can get 2 attacks. @ level 5. Dual weilding Long swords they can have 4. polearms are 2h so they would normally have 2. with the feat, they could get a 3rd. "how movement works" is irrelevant.
If you could trigger an attack as a reaction by moving so that an enemy is within your reach, you could make 1 attack as a reaction, 2 attacks as your attack action thanks to Extra Attack, and then still use a bonus action to use the other part of the Polearm Master feat and get 1 more attack.
Edit to add: and no, dual wielding weapons at 5th level doesn't get you 4 attacks - it gets you 2 with an attack action and 1 as a bonus action.
Ok, fine, 4 attacks (one's a D4). Still unrelated to movement, and still not a real argument against. Just a vague ominous warning about "unintended consequences." As if everything a DM does doesn't have unintended consequences. I'm not saying do it, I'm just saying it won't be the end of the world if you try it out and it doesn't work.
Ok, fine, 4 attacks (one's a D4). Still unrelated to movement, and still entirely irrelevant.
You have to use movement to trigger the reaction-based opportunity attack, if we're going by what the OP is asking about. Polearm Mastery triggers the OA reaction when entering the Reach range. Therefore, setting your polearm against a charge isn't going to be used, you're going to be moving up and down the battlefield to trigger the reaction attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey all.
Have a player in my game who took the Polearm Master feat.
He thought if he dashed and got within reach of an enemy he'd get an attack because of this.
I thought that would be him entering their reach, not the other way around. I don't think he'd get an attack.
What say ye, oh wise fellow DMs?
You're correct. Opportunity attacks, whether regular ones or ones enabled by this trait, are always based on the enemy's movement. Otherwise this trait would be phrased as 'when you enter their reach'.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/combat#OpportunityAttacks
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
I agree with your ruling. It is the correct one. However, you should allow him to take another feat, if he's disappointed with the ruling.
I'm with Diplomacy on this - definitely don't change how the feat works, but if the player took this feat because of their misunderstanding and doesn't want it anymore now that said misunderstanding has been cleared-up, let them change without any sort of penalty for doing so.
Yeah, I'm flexible. They want to keep it and it is still a good feat.
I'd be leery of allowing a reaction-attack while charging with Polearm on your turn. Given how movement works, you could easily have four attacks a turn by level 5, which can have unintended consequences. This kind of thing does matter.
Umm?
You get one reaction a turn not 4. Fighters/barbarians/paladins/rangers/etc can get 2 attacks. @ level 5. Dual wielding Long swords they can have 3. polearms are 2h so they would normally have 2. with the feat, they could get a 3rd, and they'd burn their reaction for any other purpose. "how movement works" is irrelevant.
Ok, fine, 4 attacks (one's a D4). Still unrelated to movement, and still not a real argument against. Just a vague ominous warning about "unintended consequences." As if everything a DM does doesn't have unintended consequences. I'm not saying do it, I'm just saying it won't be the end of the world if you try it out and it doesn't work.