Not sure if you're still having this problem with your DM or not, but one thing to remind your DM is, if your characters develop an "overpowered" combo of tactics and strategy, (s)he should always feel free to allow the world to learn to do the same thing and use those tactics against you when it suits the situation. GWM, PAM and a polearm that both of these feats apply to can be pretty slick, but when the party encounters a group with PAM and Sentinel and an applicable polearm, GWM and PAM doesn't seem so broken. It's just who lands their attacks first that has the advantage, just like normal 5e.
The first option that comes to mind is that you don't use a polearm. The rule your DM implements is just poorly thought out, and it messes polearms up to shit. If you want to emulate how you fight with a polearm in real life, what you'd want to do is make your opponent can't get within 10 feet of you (which would make them extremely powerful, and would be bad design). If you want to avoid PAM combos, what you should do is ban that feat or limit it. To implement a rule as absurd as you can only hit within 10 feet, but the enemy can get closer, is stupid. Don't use those weapons because you are at a disadvantage.
Now, if you insist on using those weapons under such absurd and arbitrary conditions, the only thing I can think of is that you always stay away from the enemy. For example that you approach 10 feet, and you retreat. For that you would need to either be able to move as a bonus action, or have a lot of movement (via spells, racial traits, or feats). If you stay at mele you're going to suffer because, incomprehensibly, your DM won't let you use your weapon.
I don't know why there are people who insist on playing things in the game, when they don't know how to do it. If you're going to change something, it should be to make the game more fun, not to break things that work. This goes in the sense of excessively improving something, or making it unusable. If you're going to break it, don't touch it.
If you're exchanging OA's, your not gaining anything from using PAM. You're just having a normal battle albeit more damage from OA's. Why use OA's then?
I know this is almost a month late, but... I mean, if all else fails, look into adapting Shield Master and talk with your DM about it. If he can make a nonsense rule that polearms can't be used at 5ft, then surely he could accept the idea of using the polearm in place of a shield as an effort to push someone back to create distance (as part of the bonus action) so you can follow up with an attack afterwards. Imo, I feel like he changed a pretty significant part of 5e combat just because he didn't agree with it, forcing the player(s) to have to dip into a different class/race/whatever just to make use out of a weapon that they wanted to try and use in the first place. I get DMs can change a few things here and there (as I've done before), but they generally don't end up screwing up a mechanic to that level. As others have said, if you're going to have to trade AOs with the target or constantly use a bonus or anything else (tbf, my suggestion does this, but at least my suggestion makes your player seem like the aggressor), then there's no real point in using a polearm at all. As for his concerns about making axes and such "obsolete," they're still capable of being paired with shields, dual wielding, etc. I just don't get your DM's mindset on this one. I'm just not a fan of restricting players beyond what the rules have already done... especially since these weapons were proven to be effective in actual warfare in reality, even in close-range combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not sure if you're still having this problem with your DM or not, but one thing to remind your DM is, if your characters develop an "overpowered" combo of tactics and strategy, (s)he should always feel free to allow the world to learn to do the same thing and use those tactics against you when it suits the situation. GWM, PAM and a polearm that both of these feats apply to can be pretty slick, but when the party encounters a group with PAM and Sentinel and an applicable polearm, GWM and PAM doesn't seem so broken. It's just who lands their attacks first that has the advantage, just like normal 5e.
Mobile doesn't require that you HIT, merely that you MAKE AN ATTACK. You don't have to hit.
The first option that comes to mind is that you don't use a polearm. The rule your DM implements is just poorly thought out, and it messes polearms up to shit.
If you want to emulate how you fight with a polearm in real life, what you'd want to do is make your opponent can't get within 10 feet of you (which would make them extremely powerful, and would be bad design).
If you want to avoid PAM combos, what you should do is ban that feat or limit it.
To implement a rule as absurd as you can only hit within 10 feet, but the enemy can get closer, is stupid. Don't use those weapons because you are at a disadvantage.
Now, if you insist on using those weapons under such absurd and arbitrary conditions, the only thing I can think of is that you always stay away from the enemy. For example that you approach 10 feet, and you retreat. For that you would need to either be able to move as a bonus action, or have a lot of movement (via spells, racial traits, or feats). If you stay at mele you're going to suffer because, incomprehensibly, your DM won't let you use your weapon.
I don't know why there are people who insist on playing things in the game, when they don't know how to do it. If you're going to change something, it should be to make the game more fun, not to break things that work. This goes in the sense of excessively improving something, or making it unusable. If you're going to break it, don't touch it.
If you're exchanging OA's, your not gaining anything from using PAM. You're just having a normal battle albeit more damage from OA's. Why use OA's then?
LYL Deuce
I know this is almost a month late, but...
I mean, if all else fails, look into adapting Shield Master and talk with your DM about it. If he can make a nonsense rule that polearms can't be used at 5ft, then surely he could accept the idea of using the polearm in place of a shield as an effort to push someone back to create distance (as part of the bonus action) so you can follow up with an attack afterwards.
Imo, I feel like he changed a pretty significant part of 5e combat just because he didn't agree with it, forcing the player(s) to have to dip into a different class/race/whatever just to make use out of a weapon that they wanted to try and use in the first place. I get DMs can change a few things here and there (as I've done before), but they generally don't end up screwing up a mechanic to that level. As others have said, if you're going to have to trade AOs with the target or constantly use a bonus or anything else (tbf, my suggestion does this, but at least my suggestion makes your player seem like the aggressor), then there's no real point in using a polearm at all. As for his concerns about making axes and such "obsolete," they're still capable of being paired with shields, dual wielding, etc.
I just don't get your DM's mindset on this one. I'm just not a fan of restricting players beyond what the rules have already done... especially since these weapons were proven to be effective in actual warfare in reality, even in close-range combat.