Curious what others think about allowing this combo. Generally Polearms don’t have a blade on the opposite end of the weapon, and Revenant Blade was mainly designed for the new scimitar. However the feat also says design a weapon of your own if it fits.
I’m not seeing anything that would be broken here. The bonus attack from the Polearm would now be increased by 1d4, you get a stat bump for str or dex, +1 AC, and the Polearm now has the finesse property so you can choose str or dex for the roll (cool if you decided to run a dex build).
There are probably “better” feats to combo with Polearm Master (like Sentinel) but I think this would be neat too.
Never mind I miss understood. But I would say that those don't synergize at all. Your creating a similar weapon so I would say no to that. Pole arms are heavy weapons. It would have to be something different. Maybe you can argue the spear, but not a polearm or glaive.
Revenant blade feat even specifies a double bladed weapon. It would be a VERY lenient DM to allow it.
From a mechanics point of view, I really don't see a problem with this. It's certainly not brokenly powerful. If anything, it's underpowered. Consider:
Because your weapon is double-bladed, it by default grants a bonus action for d4 damage.
Adding the revenant blade feat gives: +1 stat, +1 AC, and finesse option. That's certainly strong, but it's not overpowered. And so far, we're just using the Feat as written so we're fine
Now, you allow polearm master. What do you get? You already have the bonus attack option so that does nothing. So all you get is the ability to perform opportunity attacks when enemies enter your reach. Which is certainly weak for a feat, especially considering your reach is only 5'
Now, if you also want your weapon to have a 10' reach, you're actually making an overpowered base item. Consider the items applicable to Polearm Master:
Quarterstaff/Spear: basic weapons that do 1d8 (when used two-handed) and have the normal 5' reach
Pike/Glaive/Halberd: martial weapons that do 1d10 and have 10' reach
The double-scimitar meanwhile is martial and does 2d4 (so same cap as 1d8), but gives the option for using a bonus action to do an additional 1d4. It outclasses the basic weapon, but that's ok for a martial weapon. If you gave it reach baseline, that weapon would almost certainly outclass the martial weapons.
BUT as I pointed out, the weapon combination described above is actually weak. Allowing the polearm master feat to add reach as well would certainly be strong. You'd have to carefully consider it. But depending on your game, it might be ok. Certainly, I'm of the opinion that using the feat the normal way is in no way broken from a mechanical point of view.
Moving on to a question of fluff, I personally wouldn't have an issue with it. I can imagine a number of weapons which this could work with. A chain with two blades on both ends, for instance. Now, is that a weapon that would work in reality? I have no idea. Is it a weapon someone would wield in a martial arts movie or a fantasy movie? Heck yes it is. It's cool! Would it be reasonable to attack with both ends for the same damage? Sure. Would it be reasonable to get an attack of opportunity when someone gets close to you? Sure, you're a whirling ball of death. Why not. You still only get 1 reaction.
Now, I don't know exactly what type of weapon you were thinking about applying this to, but honestly my thoughts are: if it makes a good story and it's not mechanically broken (i.e. it isn't going to make the character overly strong for the level and frustrate the other players), I don't see the harm. If the player wants to spend two feats to get this type of character, let them. It's certainly a DM call and I wouldn't sit around pouting if they said no. But I would allow it.
I was considering a weapon which classified as a Polearm for the feat. So a Glaive, for example. With both feats it would go from a single 1d10 attack to:
So we basically pumped our bonus attack a little. Doesn’t seem too insane for a feat. The only thing weird here is that it’s not a double bladed scimitar, but in the feat it says to create your own similar weapon. So in my eyes, if a DM would allow a glaive with a blade on the other end, that would also fall under the feat as it is written. If I were DMing I’d probably slow it because it seems fun and potentially thematic as a progression (I learned how to use a glaive to attack at a distance -> I learned how to strike with the opposite end of my glaive as a follow up attack -> I learned how to defend myself better using a glaive’s length and feel comfortable enough putting a blade on the opposite end without hurting myself twirling it around).
Only issue I see is that you would be granting rogues the option to Sneak Attack as a Reaction, due to them suddenly having a finesse Polearm. Quarterstaff and Spear being examples of Polearms that lack the Heavy property.
Only issue I see is that you would be granting rogues the option to Sneak Attack as a Reaction, due to them suddenly having a finesse Polearm. Quarterstaff and Spear being examples of Polearms that lack the Heavy property.
However, Rogues lack access to Martial Weapons proficiency. That would cost an additional Feat, or a level of Multiclassing.
"A Valenar elf gains proficiency with the scimitar, double scimitar, longbow, and shortbow." Not that it is such a big deal for rogues to have a reaction sneak attack. They can already go for Martial Adept, Sentinel and Mage Slayer for it.
Only issue I see is that you would be granting rogues the option to Sneak Attack as a Reaction, due to them suddenly having a finesse Polearm. Quarterstaff and Spear being examples of Polearms that lack the Heavy property.
Rogues can already sneak attack as a reaction if the conditions are met. That’s how sneak attack works. It triggers once on any turn.
I was considering a weapon which classified as a Polearm for the feat. So a Glaive, for example. With both feats it would go from a single 1d10 attack to:
Rogues can already sneak attack as a reaction if the conditions are met. That’s how sneak attack works. It triggers once on any turn.
I think his point was that if you are effectively making the polearm a finesse weapon, it now opens up the possibility of sneak attack using a polearm. Maybe you want this. Maybe you had not considered this.
Rogues can already sneak attack as a reaction if the conditions are met. That’s how sneak attack works. It triggers once on any turn.
Base rules leaves that as: something tried to leave your threat range when you wanted to grind its leg you readied an action such that you spend both your action and reaction to sneak attack a party member used a spell or ability that allows you to make an attack
Sentinel adding: The thing attacked your buddy that is grinding your leg Mage Slayer adding: The thing tried to cast a spell while you were grinding its leg Martial Adept adding: The thing tried to hit me for grinding its leg
Making a Polearm into a finesse weapon allows players to JoJo meme. "Oh, you're approaching me?"
I wouldn‘t give finess option to a heavy weapon or reach to a versatile weapon, but creating a long spear 1d8 piercing/reach or a naginata 1d8 slashing/reach that work with Polearm master and revenant blade, sure.
Was going to go into a tangent on historic weapons vs their game mechanic versions and decided it is best to leave it at "They aren't the same thing". But, there are a ton of really cool videos to that effect.
I feel that glaive should be allowed to be a finesse weapon. There's plenty of examples of polearms that are similar to the glaive (a sword on top of a pole) that are more likely to go off dex such as the japanese Naginata. Besides the whip there's no finesse reach weapon, so i feel it's a bit unfair to not give other options.
Unfair to whom exactly? DEX is already the strongest stat in the game, and heavy weapons are one of the few perks of using STR.
Also, try stabbing someone with a pole from 8 feet away and tell me it doesn't require strength. Heck, just try holding it out horizontally. Finesse doesn't mean "good at aiming" or even "precise movements," it basically just means you don't need to be strong to use the weapon.
Rogues don't really need reach. They can move up, attack, and disengage all in one turn. Or take a subclass that doesn't even require them to disengage. Or just attack with a ranged weapon.
I was considering a weapon which classified as a Polearm for the feat. So a Glaive, for example. With both feats it would go from a single 1d10 attack to:
This shouldn't work that way, both Polearm Master and Double-Bladed Scimitar give you a bonus action to use but otherwise don't combine into a single one. And the weapon doesn't even qualify for the feat to get the benefits from the Revenant Blade feat as well. So you either wield a weapon that qualify for Polearm Master and get the benefits from the feat and weapon, or you wield a weapon that qualify for Revenant Blade and get the benefits from the feat and weapon, but not both altogether.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Curious what others think about allowing this combo. Generally Polearms don’t have a blade on the opposite end of the weapon, and Revenant Blade was mainly designed for the new scimitar. However the feat also says design a weapon of your own if it fits.
I’m not seeing anything that would be broken here. The bonus attack from the Polearm would now be increased by 1d4, you get a stat bump for str or dex, +1 AC, and the Polearm now has the finesse property so you can choose str or dex for the roll (cool if you decided to run a dex build).
There are probably “better” feats to combo with Polearm Master (like Sentinel) but I think this would be neat too.
Never mind I miss understood. But I would say that those don't synergize at all. Your creating a similar weapon so I would say no to that. Pole arms are heavy weapons. It would have to be something different. Maybe you can argue the spear, but not a polearm or glaive.
Revenant blade feat even specifies a double bladed weapon. It would be a VERY lenient DM to allow it.
From a mechanics point of view, I really don't see a problem with this. It's certainly not brokenly powerful. If anything, it's underpowered. Consider:
Now, if you also want your weapon to have a 10' reach, you're actually making an overpowered base item. Consider the items applicable to Polearm Master:
The double-scimitar meanwhile is martial and does 2d4 (so same cap as 1d8), but gives the option for using a bonus action to do an additional 1d4. It outclasses the basic weapon, but that's ok for a martial weapon. If you gave it reach baseline, that weapon would almost certainly outclass the martial weapons.
BUT as I pointed out, the weapon combination described above is actually weak. Allowing the polearm master feat to add reach as well would certainly be strong. You'd have to carefully consider it. But depending on your game, it might be ok. Certainly, I'm of the opinion that using the feat the normal way is in no way broken from a mechanical point of view.
Moving on to a question of fluff, I personally wouldn't have an issue with it. I can imagine a number of weapons which this could work with. A chain with two blades on both ends, for instance. Now, is that a weapon that would work in reality? I have no idea. Is it a weapon someone would wield in a martial arts movie or a fantasy movie? Heck yes it is. It's cool! Would it be reasonable to attack with both ends for the same damage? Sure. Would it be reasonable to get an attack of opportunity when someone gets close to you? Sure, you're a whirling ball of death. Why not. You still only get 1 reaction.
Now, I don't know exactly what type of weapon you were thinking about applying this to, but honestly my thoughts are: if it makes a good story and it's not mechanically broken (i.e. it isn't going to make the character overly strong for the level and frustrate the other players), I don't see the harm. If the player wants to spend two feats to get this type of character, let them. It's certainly a DM call and I wouldn't sit around pouting if they said no. But I would allow it.
I was considering a weapon which classified as a Polearm for the feat. So a Glaive, for example. With both feats it would go from a single 1d10 attack to:
- 1d10 attack
- 1d4 bonus attack (Polearm Mastery) + 1d4 (Revenant Blade)
So we basically pumped our bonus attack a little. Doesn’t seem too insane for a feat. The only thing weird here is that it’s not a double bladed scimitar, but in the feat it says to create your own similar weapon. So in my eyes, if a DM would allow a glaive with a blade on the other end, that would also fall under the feat as it is written. If I were DMing I’d probably slow it because it seems fun and potentially thematic as a progression (I learned how to use a glaive to attack at a distance -> I learned how to strike with the opposite end of my glaive as a follow up attack -> I learned how to defend myself better using a glaive’s length and feel comfortable enough putting a blade on the opposite end without hurting myself twirling it around).
Only issue I see is that you would be granting rogues the option to Sneak Attack as a Reaction, due to them suddenly having a finesse Polearm.
Quarterstaff and Spear being examples of Polearms that lack the Heavy property.
However, Rogues lack access to Martial Weapons proficiency. That would cost an additional Feat, or a level of Multiclassing.
"A Valenar elf gains proficiency with the scimitar, double scimitar, longbow, and shortbow."
Not that it is such a big deal for rogues to have a reaction sneak attack.
They can already go for Martial Adept, Sentinel and Mage Slayer for it.
Rogues can already sneak attack as a reaction if the conditions are met. That’s how sneak attack works. It triggers once on any turn.
you only get one bonus attack.
I think his point was that if you are effectively making the polearm a finesse weapon, it now opens up the possibility of sneak attack using a polearm. Maybe you want this. Maybe you had not considered this.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Base rules leaves that as:
something tried to leave your threat range when you wanted to grind its leg
you readied an action such that you spend both your action and reaction to sneak attack
a party member used a spell or ability that allows you to make an attack
Sentinel adding: The thing attacked your buddy that is grinding your leg
Mage Slayer adding: The thing tried to cast a spell while you were grinding its leg
Martial Adept adding: The thing tried to hit me for grinding its leg
Making a Polearm into a finesse weapon allows players to JoJo meme.
"Oh, you're approaching me?"
Hello,
New player here.... I was reading another Forum (( https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2lkmjw/aerenal_and_valenar_elf_subraces_for_5e_eberron/ )) and the poster mention the double Scimitar counting as a Glaive... is this the Case? A 2d4 Finesse Glaive with 5ft range? w/ 1d4 bonus action attack.
No, double-bladed scimitars do not count as glaives.
I don't like the idea of a finesse heavy weapon, feels like an oxymoron. I know not all polearms are heavy, but at least for the ones that are.
As a game mechanic, yes.
I wouldn‘t give finess option to a heavy weapon or reach to a versatile weapon, but creating a long spear 1d8 piercing/reach or a naginata 1d8 slashing/reach that work with Polearm master and revenant blade, sure.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]Was going to go into a tangent on historic weapons vs their game mechanic versions and decided it is best to leave it at "They aren't the same thing".
But, there are a ton of really cool videos to that effect.
I feel that glaive should be allowed to be a finesse weapon. There's plenty of examples of polearms that are similar to the glaive (a sword on top of a pole) that are more likely to go off dex such as the japanese Naginata. Besides the whip there's no finesse reach weapon, so i feel it's a bit unfair to not give other options.
Unfair to whom exactly? DEX is already the strongest stat in the game, and heavy weapons are one of the few perks of using STR.
Also, try stabbing someone with a pole from 8 feet away and tell me it doesn't require strength. Heck, just try holding it out horizontally. Finesse doesn't mean "good at aiming" or even "precise movements," it basically just means you don't need to be strong to use the weapon.
Rogues don't really need reach. They can move up, attack, and disengage all in one turn. Or take a subclass that doesn't even require them to disengage. Or just attack with a ranged weapon.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
This shouldn't work that way, both Polearm Master and Double-Bladed Scimitar give you a bonus action to use but otherwise don't combine into a single one. And the weapon doesn't even qualify for the feat to get the benefits from the Revenant Blade feat as well. So you either wield a weapon that qualify for Polearm Master and get the benefits from the feat and weapon, or you wield a weapon that qualify for Revenant Blade and get the benefits from the feat and weapon, but not both altogether.