Our DM does not allow Polearms to attack adjacent squares, but instead requires that their target be at 10ft. I understand his rationale, but I am curious if anyone else has encountered this and how they deal with it when a foe comes within 5ft. I know that it would trigger an opportunity for me, but after that...if I want to attack him on my turn, I would need to back up, which would trigger an opportunity for him. Here are the options I was thinking through....
1. I thought the "Mobile" feat would help this, but it requires that you hit BEFORE backing up.
2. Using the Goblin race might work, but I'm just not gonna play a goblin, lol.
3. Taking "Cunning Action" from Rogue level 2 would seem to solve the problem, but I'm curious if anyone else has any other ideas that I haven't thought of.
I'm still pretty new to the game, so any input would be appreciated! Thanks!
I think your best bet would be to convince your DM that the range of 10ft ALSO includes the ability to attack at 5ft. If you attack at 5ft, you stab, and swing while holding your polearm near the center. If you attack at 10ft, you make these movements with the polearm extended, probably holding it by the last third of it's length.
I appreciate the thought, but I'm afraid he's firm on that rule of his. I just want to do my best to adjust, and am wondering if there is any other way...other than having to take two levels in rogue.
Tell your DM read the rules on melee attacks. The normal attack range for melee attacks are those targets that are within 5ft. It specifically mentions large creatures that can melee attack targets that are within 5ft and beyond up to their max range. If this can't be understood, I don't think anyone here will truly be able to help you. After you make adjustments for one poorly interpreted rule, another will take it's place.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that your DM may have misunderstood the rule of ranged attacks within 5ft of a target which incur a roll with disadvantage. You have polearm with a 10ft range, it's still a melee attack with reach, not a ranged attack.
I completely see your point. I should probably clarify that our DM does understand the rule on this...but there are certain rules that he chooses to adjust according to his philosophy about how the game should be. (I understand that each DM has that prerogative?) He believes that it makes the polearm too overpowered, especially when coupled with both GWM and PAM, and great axes and greatswords become almost obsolete in comparison.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that he is firm on this, and I'm ok with it, because he's an awesome DM.
Can you think of any other method (other than level 2 rogue) of adjusting to this?
As far as I'm aware those are the only easily accessible ways of getting disengage as a bonus action. Rogue and Goblin (or Monk Step of the Wind but that costs Ki you won't have). And it's for that reason I think the rule your DM has implemented makes polearms terrible in comparison to anything else.
Polearms + GWM + PAM is overpowered - but only in enclosed or heavy melee fights. All he has to do to counter that is bring in some ranged or casters and your power is curbed.
I'd have a REAL problem with your DM's ruling. Setting aside his opinion that polearms are OP as written(which I absolutely disagree with), making them useless at 5' melee range makes them severely UNDERpowered. Not being able to use a melee weapon against someone standing right next to you is kinda nuts. Imagine, I close to 10ft, attack with my polearm. They close to 5ft and attack with their sword. Now I have to back out of their reach in order to attack them again, which lets them make an Attack Of Opportunity. So if I want to stay engaged with a melee enemy until I kill them, I have to essentially give them an extra attack EVERY ROUND. I'm not a statistician, but but there is no way on Earth I'm using a polearm in that game.
I'd have a REAL problem with your DM's ruling. Setting aside his opinion that polearms are OP as written(which I absolutely disagree with), making them useless at 5' melee range makes them severely UNDERpowered. Not being able to use a melee weapon against someone standing right next to you is kinda nuts. Imagine, I close to 10ft, attack with my polearm. They close to 5ft and attack with their sword. Now I have to back out of their reach in order to attack them again, which lets them make an Attack Of Opportunity. So if I want to stay engaged with a melee enemy until I kill them, I have to essentially give them an extra attack EVERY ROUND. I'm not a statistician, but but there is no way on Earth I'm using a polearm in that game.
This is really doing it the hard way and horribly impractical. Use your polearm to attack them at 10' range. If they close the distance, just switch to a one-handed 5' melee weapon. You can even keep holding the polearm in your other hand if it makes you feel better.
I think in 3e, reach weapons could attack a target 10’ away but not 5’ away. But 3e had the 5’ step which allowed a reach weapon user to step back and attack without provoking an opportunity attack. Since 5e doesn’t have this rule, you either have to use your action to disengage or move back, provoke an opportunity attack and then attack.
If your DM thought polearms were too powerful, he certainly nerfed them to irrelevance with that house rule. They could be useful for fighting in two ranks but then you have problems with your allies providing cover for your enemies.
But if you're going to have to give up your polearm every time someone gets within 5ft, there is no point in taking it in the first place.
If you have to give up your bonus action that fuels many abilities to Cunning Action: Disengage all the time, there is no point in taking polearm or Rogue either in my opinion.
Maybe play the buddy system to full effect by attacking only targets that are engaged with your allies at 5ft melee range while you stay out of that enemies range at 10ft. If they move to you and attack, your ally gets OA.
If enemies engage you at 5ft, have allies attack from range with bows, spells, or even have a melee ally use an ability that causes said enemies to take disadvantage to attack you instead of that ally.
As I said before, 1 misunderstood rule can complicate every situation that follows in search of a remedy. It would make more sense to play something else that your DM Wouldn't handicap. In his defense, he has every right to rule something as OP. Quite often players munchkin some of the rules but, they don't like it when NPCs employ the same tactics. Maybe you could do the same here in reverse and make things as difficult as possible for a polearm wielding NPC he controls. It might make him think twice but, it's usually more effective when there are 2 or more people willing to DM, it helps to gain better perspective of the game as player and DM.
I did think of two other strategies that you might like that are closely related.
If the enemy has initiative , PAM allows you to make an OA when an enemy moves to your range of 10ft. On your action declare attack, attack to push enemy back 5ft(moving the enemy from it's 5ft range to your 10ft range ) , use your bonus action to use the PAM attack. When you gain Extra Attack, you go push, polearm attack, bonus PAM attack.
If you have the initiative, engage to 10ft, declare attack. Attack to knock enemy prone IF you have at least 10ft movement left for your turn , use your bonus action to use the PAM attack at a disadvantage(prone target at more than 5ft). Move back 10ft or more, take the OA that the prone enemy uses at a disadvantage. Enemy uses half it's movement to stand. If it doesn't have enough movement to get to you, it must attack with a ranged attack, ability or spell. Or simply pick another target within range. If it does move to 10ft of you, PAM OA it. Extra Attack is polearm attack, prone attack, bonus PAM attack, possible PAM OA attack.
If you don't have 10ft movement left after moving to your target, polearm attack, bonus PAM attack. Extra Attack is polearm attack, polearm attack, bonus PAM attack. If you have 5ft movement left back off and see if you can get the enemy to trigger PAM OA.
But if you're going to have to give up your polearm every time someone gets within 5ft, there is no point in taking it in the first place.
That's a fair conclusion. There's nothing in the rules that says a polearm cannot attack an adjacent square. In fact, the only reach weapon that says anything about it is the lance and even that one lets you do it--it just gives you disadvantage. But if he is going to play that reach weapons have a minimum distance, then you have to make some adjustments in your strategy. Of all the tactics that have been floated, it seems to me that carrying a standard one handed melee weapon as backup is the easy way to go.
We have a guy in our party who likes to use bows. When the enemy closes in on him, he switches to a rapier rather than dealing with the issues you describe just to keep using his bow.
Best just to change weapons at this point. Most polearms were designed with a spike or spear-point on the tip so they could be used in close-quarters combat; you basically choke up on the haft and use it like a spear to jab with. (Trivia note: A lot of greatswords were also designed with a section near the middle of the blade that was dull so you could grab it and use it as a thrusting weapon in close quarters or tight spaces.)
Your DM has nerfed polearms to the point of being nearly useless.
I discussed this with our DM last night on discord. He says that it's the sentinel "lock down" ability after the PAM opp attack that is the big issue...and he may be right. I suggested to him, as a compromise, that we simply allow polearm to attack at 5ft, but don't allow the "lock down" on the PAM opp attack...or maybe just remove the PAM opp attack. After all...the lock down is intended (as I understand it) to prevent foes from running away from you, or to keep them focused on you rather than on your allies. The lock down from PAM does not seem to fit this. Anyway, I'm waiting to hear back from him.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Our DM does not allow Polearms to attack adjacent squares, but instead requires that their target be at 10ft. I understand his rationale, but I am curious if anyone else has encountered this and how they deal with it when a foe comes within 5ft. I know that it would trigger an opportunity for me, but after that...if I want to attack him on my turn, I would need to back up, which would trigger an opportunity for him. Here are the options I was thinking through....
1. I thought the "Mobile" feat would help this, but it requires that you hit BEFORE backing up.
2. Using the Goblin race might work, but I'm just not gonna play a goblin, lol.
3. Taking "Cunning Action" from Rogue level 2 would seem to solve the problem, but I'm curious if anyone else has any other ideas that I haven't thought of.
I'm still pretty new to the game, so any input would be appreciated! Thanks!
I think your best bet would be to convince your DM that the range of 10ft ALSO includes the ability to attack at 5ft. If you attack at 5ft, you stab, and swing while holding your polearm near the center. If you attack at 10ft, you make these movements with the polearm extended, probably holding it by the last third of it's length.
I appreciate the thought, but I'm afraid he's firm on that rule of his. I just want to do my best to adjust, and am wondering if there is any other way...other than having to take two levels in rogue.
Tell your DM read the rules on melee attacks. The normal attack range for melee attacks are those targets that are within 5ft. It specifically mentions large creatures that can melee attack targets that are within 5ft and beyond up to their max range. If this can't be understood, I don't think anyone here will truly be able to help you. After you make adjustments for one poorly interpreted rule, another will take it's place.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that your DM may have misunderstood the rule of ranged attacks within 5ft of a target which incur a roll with disadvantage. You have polearm with a 10ft range, it's still a melee attack with reach, not a ranged attack.
Good luck.
Just bring a sword for when they get up next to you.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I completely see your point. I should probably clarify that our DM does understand the rule on this...but there are certain rules that he chooses to adjust according to his philosophy about how the game should be. (I understand that each DM has that prerogative?) He believes that it makes the polearm too overpowered, especially when coupled with both GWM and PAM, and great axes and greatswords become almost obsolete in comparison.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that he is firm on this, and I'm ok with it, because he's an awesome DM.
Can you think of any other method (other than level 2 rogue) of adjusting to this?
As far as I'm aware those are the only easily accessible ways of getting disengage as a bonus action. Rogue and Goblin (or Monk Step of the Wind but that costs Ki you won't have). And it's for that reason I think the rule your DM has implemented makes polearms terrible in comparison to anything else.
Polearms + GWM + PAM is overpowered - but only in enclosed or heavy melee fights. All he has to do to counter that is bring in some ranged or casters and your power is curbed.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Ok, just wanted to be sure I wasn't overlooking something. Thanks very much to the three of you for taking the time to respond.
Much appreciated!!
You could use sentinel. If trying to move within 5 feet of you triggers OA, you don't even need PAM for the keep away shenanigans.
Just use OA and sentinel to drop the enemy speed to 0 while 10 feet away from you, repeat, repeat some more, drink DM tears, profit.
I actually hadn't thought of that, lol, but I probably should have. Thanks!
I'd have a REAL problem with your DM's ruling. Setting aside his opinion that polearms are OP as written(which I absolutely disagree with), making them useless at 5' melee range makes them severely UNDERpowered. Not being able to use a melee weapon against someone standing right next to you is kinda nuts. Imagine, I close to 10ft, attack with my polearm. They close to 5ft and attack with their sword. Now I have to back out of their reach in order to attack them again, which lets them make an Attack Of Opportunity. So if I want to stay engaged with a melee enemy until I kill them, I have to essentially give them an extra attack EVERY ROUND. I'm not a statistician, but but there is no way on Earth I'm using a polearm in that game.
Yeah, but with polearm mastery feat, you would basically exchange opportunity attacks every turn, lol. Kinda messy! But I totally agree with you.
This is really doing it the hard way and horribly impractical. Use your polearm to attack them at 10' range. If they close the distance, just switch to a one-handed 5' melee weapon. You can even keep holding the polearm in your other hand if it makes you feel better.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
But if you're going to have to give up your polearm every time someone gets within 5ft, there is no point in taking it in the first place.
I think in 3e, reach weapons could attack a target 10’ away but not 5’ away. But 3e had the 5’ step which allowed a reach weapon user to step back and attack without provoking an opportunity attack. Since 5e doesn’t have this rule, you either have to use your action to disengage or move back, provoke an opportunity attack and then attack.
If your DM thought polearms were too powerful, he certainly nerfed them to irrelevance with that house rule. They could be useful for fighting in two ranks but then you have problems with your allies providing cover for your enemies.
If you have to give up your bonus action that fuels many abilities to Cunning Action: Disengage all the time, there is no point in taking polearm or Rogue either in my opinion.
Maybe play the buddy system to full effect by attacking only targets that are engaged with your allies at 5ft melee range while you stay out of that enemies range at 10ft. If they move to you and attack, your ally gets OA.
If enemies engage you at 5ft, have allies attack from range with bows, spells, or even have a melee ally use an ability that causes said enemies to take disadvantage to attack you instead of that ally.
As I said before, 1 misunderstood rule can complicate every situation that follows in search of a remedy. It would make more sense to play something else that your DM Wouldn't handicap. In his defense, he has every right to rule something as OP. Quite often players munchkin some of the rules but, they don't like it when NPCs employ the same tactics. Maybe you could do the same here in reverse and make things as difficult as possible for a polearm wielding NPC he controls. It might make him think twice but, it's usually more effective when there are 2 or more people willing to DM, it helps to gain better perspective of the game as player and DM.
I did think of two other strategies that you might like that are closely related.
If the enemy has initiative , PAM allows you to make an OA when an enemy moves to your range of 10ft. On your action declare attack, attack to push enemy back 5ft(moving the enemy from it's 5ft range to your 10ft range ) , use your bonus action to use the PAM attack. When you gain Extra Attack, you go push, polearm attack, bonus PAM attack.
If you have the initiative, engage to 10ft, declare attack. Attack to knock enemy prone IF you have at least 10ft movement left for your turn , use your bonus action to use the PAM attack at a disadvantage(prone target at more than 5ft). Move back 10ft or more, take the OA that the prone enemy uses at a disadvantage. Enemy uses half it's movement to stand. If it doesn't have enough movement to get to you, it must attack with a ranged attack, ability or spell. Or simply pick another target within range. If it does move to 10ft of you, PAM OA it. Extra Attack is polearm attack, prone attack, bonus PAM attack, possible PAM OA attack.
If you don't have 10ft movement left after moving to your target, polearm attack, bonus PAM attack. Extra Attack is polearm attack, polearm attack, bonus PAM attack. If you have 5ft movement left back off and see if you can get the enemy to trigger PAM OA.
That's a fair conclusion. There's nothing in the rules that says a polearm cannot attack an adjacent square. In fact, the only reach weapon that says anything about it is the lance and even that one lets you do it--it just gives you disadvantage. But if he is going to play that reach weapons have a minimum distance, then you have to make some adjustments in your strategy. Of all the tactics that have been floated, it seems to me that carrying a standard one handed melee weapon as backup is the easy way to go.
We have a guy in our party who likes to use bows. When the enemy closes in on him, he switches to a rapier rather than dealing with the issues you describe just to keep using his bow.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Best just to change weapons at this point. Most polearms were designed with a spike or spear-point on the tip so they could be used in close-quarters combat; you basically choke up on the haft and use it like a spear to jab with. (Trivia note: A lot of greatswords were also designed with a section near the middle of the blade that was dull so you could grab it and use it as a thrusting weapon in close quarters or tight spaces.)
Your DM has nerfed polearms to the point of being nearly useless.
I discussed this with our DM last night on discord. He says that it's the sentinel "lock down" ability after the PAM opp attack that is the big issue...and he may be right. I suggested to him, as a compromise, that we simply allow polearm to attack at 5ft, but don't allow the "lock down" on the PAM opp attack...or maybe just remove the PAM opp attack. After all...the lock down is intended (as I understand it) to prevent foes from running away from you, or to keep them focused on you rather than on your allies. The lock down from PAM does not seem to fit this. Anyway, I'm waiting to hear back from him.