Regarding reach, its been said already but refuted (incorrectly): a reach weapon has no problem attacking at 5'. It reaches at 5' just as well as 10'. Moving within that space indeed does not trigger anything (which is what the guide is saying) but doesn't apply much to this discussion (and only does because someone misinterpreted when provokes happen). The weapon property of reach doesn't make a weapon's reach from 5' to 10', in other words it doesn't have a threatened space of 5' to 10', it is from 0' to 10'. It is extended. Reach is a purely beneficial weapon trait now. It appears all the talk of not attacking within 5' is a relic of old edition thinking.
I am restating this because it's been used as a reason several times. Reach is not a defined term. As a statistic on a sheet, it is a range. That range doesn't extend through total cover. The feat doesn't trigger by a line being crossed. Again, REACH is not a defined term except as a weapon quality. So practically speaking, if you can't *reach* a target for whatever reason, it doesn't mess with the feat. When something enters reach, hit it. Its a lot more simple than you guys are making it out to be.
Geometry of architecture ... Keep it simple. If you can't explain it to a child, you're wrong.
I am restating this because it's been used as a reason several times.
No it hasn't. The key issue is not where a polearm can attack, it's what "enter" means. Enter is moving from a space that is outside of reach to a space that is inside of reach. This is not the same as entering threatened area (it's often very similar, but it's not the same thing). If the creature happens to be unattackable when that trigger occurs, or the movement is of a type that doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, too bad, you don't get your PAM attack.
I will point out that moving within reach into total cover and then leaving reach DOES provoke.
So the inverse is true.
And it appears y'all arguing against me aren't acknowledging what REACH actually is. Are you saying you have reach on a creature in the ground beneath you?
I will point out that moving within reach into total cover and then leaving reach DOES provoke.
So the inverse is true.
And it appears y'all arguing against me aren't acknowledging what REACH actually is. Are you saying you have reach on a creature in the ground beneath you?
Citation? RAW it doesn't, though there could be a sage advice somewhere. And yes, you have reach on a creature in the ground beneath you, you just can't attack it. Reach and threatened area aren't the same thing.
A PAM with a spear is fighting beside, not in-front of, a closed door in a 5' hallway. There is another closed door across it. The fighter is in combat. An enemy opens the door, walks into the hall, attacks, opens the other door, walks through it, and closes the door, before walking away from the door.
This whole thing just seems like petty rules lawyering. It's not smart fighting, it's metagaming to undermine a player ability that a DM finds annoying.
This is a little OT but, seems like a good story to share. I played an ogre bowman in a game long ago and was able to down most enemies before they got to me. During one adventure, I wounded an enemy and he ran into a cave system. I tracked him for a while and eventually some of the passages were a tight fit. At this time, somehow my quarry had gotten well ahead of me but, a large cavebear popped up and was heading my way while I was moving through cramped quarters. My GM asked me what I was going to do with a mischievous grin and I knew I had just fell into my first of many metagaming traps. I reminded my GM that my bow was a minor magic item and couldn't be broken. I made a called shot to put out one of the bears eyes, taking a 75% penalty to hit. I rolled a natural 20 and thrust my bow into the bear's eye all the way to the back of it's skull. I took some mauling hits before the bear's death throes ended. My GM, looking satisfied that he had gotten my character to do something other than punch holes in enemies at range, awarded me max solo xp for a deadly encounter.
If you are unaware of the point of my story, it is this: Yes, you can do things as a DM that limit a player's abilities but, when that is the only purpose and it detracts from the enjoyment of the game, you're doing it wrong. If RAW rules lawyering is your justification, again, you're doing it wrong. My adventure WAS fun and even without luck, I had a better than fair chance against the bear.
A PAM with a spear is fighting beside, not in-front of, a closed door in a 5' hallway. There is another closed door across it. The fighter is in combat. An enemy opens the door, walks into the hall, attacks, opens the other door, walks through it, and closes the door, before walking away from the door.
No attack from the PAM by your interpretation.
I hope I'm not the only one seeing the absurdity.
You can't do that because it requires too many actions (you can open or close a door with a free interact, but you only get one of them), but if we assume automated doors, I don't see any absurdity there.
This whole thing just seems like petty rules lawyering. It's not smart fighting, it's metagaming to undermine a player ability that a DM finds annoying.
It really isn't. Using cover to get within the reach of a long weapon without being attacked is the kind of thing that works in reality, and doesn't even require anything close to total cover, it just requires something in the intervening space that prevents the polearm from freely swinging through that space (though on reflection, it doesn't make any sense that PAM works at all for non-reach weapons; it's dangerous to pass through enemy reach when your enemy has more reach than you, but not really when reach is equal).
The standard weapon for many a royal guard is a polearm, and they have dealt with mobs at wrestling range effectively. The 'long weapon' argument is not valid. Practically speaking, getting within reach of an opponent is a major threat when your reach is smaller, but you're still at risk of being hit inside that long reach. A skilled polearm wielder will not hold out their weapon as if set againt a charge. They will hack your head off or stab the chest more accurately when you're close. Old "get within reach" is a relic of old 3rd edition thinking, especially considering there are no 5' steps.
The standard weapon for many a royal guard is a polearm, and they have dealt with mobs at wrestling range effectively. The 'long weapon' argument is not valid. Practically speaking, getting within reach of an opponent is a major threat when your reach is smaller, but you're still at risk of being hit inside that long reach. A skilled polearm wielder will not hold out their weapon as if set againt a charge. They will hack your head off or stab the chest more accurately when you're close. Old "get within reach" is a relic of old 3rd edition thinking, especially considering there are no 5' steps.
There is nothing preventing using a polearm to hit someone who's inside your reach. It just means you can't use a stop-thrust to hit them (which is what PAM is intended to represent AFAICT). Being strictly realistic, reach should be a switchable property that you can change on your turn (so you could choke up). And 'get within reach' is not a relic of 3rd edition, it's a term that exists entirely outside of the realm of D&D.
RAW you can always make an unarmed strike, thus you always have a weapon with a reach of 5' available. The rules do not specify that you have use the weapon with the related range that triggers an op attack all you need is a creature to enter your reach. So, if a creature enters a square 5' from a polearm master somehow bypassing the 10' square, they have entered the reach of any unarmed strike that the character would like to make, however, polearm master just says a creature entering your reach and so you can still make a polearm ooportunity attack against a creature at 5' since they entered the reach of your unarmed strike.
I would not allow it in my games as DM but RAW it appears to work.
You cannot make a polearm AoO in this case, you can make an unarmed AoO triggered by polearm master.
The rules don't actually say that though it is certainly one way to rule it if you like.
Polearm master does NOT say that the triggering event has to be entering the reach of the polearm and no where in opportunity attacks does it say that you have to use the reach of the weapon triggering the attack as the weapon you attack with. The rules only discuss entering your reach and have nothing to do with the weapon or ability triggering the effect.
This is the text on the DnDBeyond app and the website through the sourcebook, but not from the feat list (yes, DNDB has a few different locations that have text that apparently don't talk to each other):
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.
It appears that there was an errata that changed PAM. It's in my newer copy of the PHB which is a few years old now. It clearly states that it must be the reach you have with the glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear that you are wielding for the OA upon entering the reach.
The feat list from the drop down of game rules>feats has the text you listed which is in my older, non corrected, & placed-in-sheet-protectors-in-a-binder PHB that also doesn't mention the spear. The only difference appears to be that the feat list mentions the spear.
If you don't count entering the east space from the north space as entering, then I can see your point and won't contest it further. I see it as entering a controlled space and this is what is causing the differences in our ideas on how this works.
This reading negates Cavalier's 10th level ability Hold the Line. PAM talks about entering reach and Hold the Line talks about moving within reach.
Also, you can attack with a polearm at maximum effect at 5'. So if they do manage to go unseen at 10', but get seen at 5', that's when they provoke.
No, turning visible within reach is not entering reach. Either they provoke at 10' (while invisible), or they don't provoke at all.
This is how I see it. If the polearm player is stressed about hitting the person coming around the corner, then they can ensure that they are 10 ft back of the corner.
If they are behind a wall, they are not in your reach, once they poke out from behind that wall, they entered your reach. When they are 25 feet away, they are not in reach. When they teleport to 5 feet, they entered your reach. You are over thinking it.
As far as teleportation goes with not being movement, movement is not required based on the wording, only entering the reach. 5e is very picky on words, and if they meant movement was required, they would have said "when they move into your reach" not when they enter....
Someone behind a wall is in your reach, just behind total cover. 'Enter' means 'movement'. PAM is not 'any time anyone becomes attackable you can attack them', it's "someone moves over a line that is the edge of your reach".
Just to clarify something but by RAW the first square behind a corner is visible and can be attacked from 10' away by a creature with a 10' reach. The corner does not hide provide total cover to a creature just around the corner. The creature in that square does get partial cover but it is visible and an attack CAN be made if you are playing by the line of sight rules for play on a grid in the DMG. As a result, polearm master would still trigger when a creature enters the square 10' away but the creature would receive partial cover.
This is probably the best explanation for the corner example. The player gets the OA but the target gets +2 to AC. This way the player gets to use their feat but gets a penalty for being in a position that is suboptimal for their build.
If you want to get as pedantic as possible, the player would only be able to see squares forward and probably the ones to the side (depending on whether someone thought to say that their character had terrible peripheral vision or not). This would mean that a character coming up from behind them wouldn't trigger a OA regardless of corners, terrain, manner of approach, etc and likewise wouldn't if someone managed to leave their reach in a direction that they weren't facing. Since facing isn't really incorporated into this edition, we basically ignore this fact unless we're using a house rule or a possible optional rule.
Edit: added multiquotes after changing to computer from phone.
Also, opportunity attack:
You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
Then, if I may be so obtuse, I will say that the RAW on this is dependent on how the GM considers reach, which several people have decided is defined, while I insist it is not. Bonus actions are defined. Ability modifiers are defined. Critical hits, cover, conditions, HD, HP, damage dice, are all defined. Reach is not- it says:
"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. ..." This does not say what reach is. It merely says that most creatures can reach 5'. Note it is speaking of what the creature in question can attack, which implies that if it can't attack it, they can't reach it. Invisibility is the exception.
What it comes down it to is how the GM interprets reach, then, and as NOBODY has been able to use rules to refute my point, it seems THIS is RAW:
If the GM sees reach as a measure in all directions regardless of impediments, then PAM doesn't provoke. If the GM sees reach as a potential maximum range of a melee combatant that doesn't go through impediments, then PAM does provoke.
This incidentally also determines if a character can provoke against burrowing creatures that don't leave holes and any other similar situation.
What it comes down it to is how the GM interprets reach, then, and as NOBODY has been able to use rules to refute my point, it seems THIS is RAW:
If the GM sees reach as a measure in all directions regardless of impediments, then PAM doesn't provoke. If the GM sees reach as a potential maximum range of a melee combatant that doesn't go through impediments, then PAM does provoke.
This incidentally also determines if a character can provoke against burrowing creatures that don't leave holes and any other similar situation.
Reach is pretty clearly just a radius. Also, your version creates an anomaly:
Creature advances on PAM user behind total cover: PAM can attack when creature leaves cover, at no penalty
Creature advances on PAM user behind 3/4 cover: PAM must attack through 3/4 cover.
For those who think the DM is some nefarious metagamer shutting down the poor player's feat, consider a character with PM and Sentinel are making these extra OAs every battle and probably nearly every round. I know because I DM for one. Getting around it every now and then is not the end of the world, and forcing the party to go to their plan B every now and then is vital to keep battles from being boring and stale.
A polearm user should position themselves advantageously. Being right behind a corner (or adjacent to a Wall of Sand that blocks line of sight in the case where it came up at my table) is just not smart positioning when you're wielding a polearm. Yes, you can attack anywhere within your reach. But the OA from PM is a special attack that occurs under special circumstances because your weapon is made to keep things at bay. If you want to argue that a guy with a 10 foot pole can counter a monster bursting out of the ground at his feet with the same effectiveness as someone approaching him head-on at the end of his weapon, knock yourself out. The RAW is very shaky, the RAI is clear as hell, and PM is still better than any other feat even when interpreted as unfavorably as possible.
I disagree entirely (obviously). When someone says they can reach 8' up, they aren't suggesting they can reach through a ceiling 5' up. The rules don't define it one way or the other.
About the anomaly, it's not really. The PAM can clearly reach the target in 3/4 cover, and should attack at that point (which is what should have happened in the OP's case). The actual question, though, still stands.
*edit: It's not about making optimal attacks, it's about actually getting the attack the feat entitles them to. Wtfdndadsaid it well: "It's not smart fighting, it's metagaming to undermine a player ability that a DM finds annoying."
I think you have to determine WHEN a creature enters reach, and I personally, do not think the rules are clear on that. A monster coming around a corner has total cover and cannot be targeted. Since it cannot be targeted, distance be darned, it has not entered reach. My weapon cannot reach it. My ruling would be that the creature enters reach as soon as it is eligible to be attacked and no earlier, and thus would enter reach at 5 foot and trigger the OA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
PAM isn't made to keep monsters at bay. It is a reactive attack. Sentinel + PAM is certainly intended to do so in the player's mind, and the GM is the one who has to deal with it, just like every other powerful combination. The excessive power of a rules-legal thing isn't really a valid argument... until it tapers into absolute game-breaking, because then the rules need to be fixed. And that discussion about PAM + Sentinel has already been beaten hard. That still is a Very Bad reason to look for ways like this to weaken one of the feats.
And a polearm is a real weapon that is very effective at killing in the hands of an individual in close quarters fights, and are prevalent weapons of choice. Not like some Monster Hunter oversized thing that the user has to utilize leg muscle just to give it momentum. A glaive/halbred accurately weighs in at a measly 6 lbs. You can swing it with panache. You could cut your leg with it if you play with it, just like a sword. If you can easily cut your own leg accidentally, you can sure as heck ruin the day of a monster popping up next to you with the "expertise" that the feat represents.
I will give due credit, however. 5e pikes represent the extreme end, at 18 lbs should be about 20' long, which are strictly formation weapons, though they could be imagined in use against large monsters. That is the one weapon where your weapon argument holds weight (har har).
And yes, I am arguing that the reactive attack is just as effective at a wizard teleporting in, a monster popping up out of burrowing, a person jumping out from around a corner, and a person simply walking up. All of them are entering the polearm master's reach and the question of how they do so should not in any way circumvent the feat, with the possible exception of a cautious invisible target, but even that could be argued to be reactively attacked, RAI.
We all know PAM is one of the strongest feats, and if you want to tone its power down, that's another discussion entirely. Don't use metagame gimmicks that will clearly make your player annoyed, especially one that is arguable. But if you're GM, feel free to say reach goes through walls, then the RAW is clear. Or do the inverse, RAW will still be clear.
Again, I'll go slightly off topic to attempt to make a point. If someone teleported right next to a Wizard and made an attack, would the Wizard get to use his reaction to cast Shield? Of course he would you say. Uh but, why? The rules don't even say you have to see the attack coming. What if the Wizard is blind or just a blinfolded character? Don't matter, RAW says he can do it. I mean, this ability actually says you get hit by an attack...then you turn back time shaking your finger, nuh uh u ain't hit me. LOL, and I love Shield!
To my mind, this is a much more extreme show of power than just letting some polearm bro get an AoO at 5 ft instead of 10 ft. If this is an apples to orange comparison for you, I understand. The purpose is to yet again call out RAW when you just blindly follow it or try to, it isn't always consistent or logical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Imagine that it is a 5' pillar between them that would provide total cover. What say you, then?
Regarding reach, its been said already but refuted (incorrectly): a reach weapon has no problem attacking at 5'. It reaches at 5' just as well as 10'. Moving within that space indeed does not trigger anything (which is what the guide is saying) but doesn't apply much to this discussion (and only does because someone misinterpreted when provokes happen). The weapon property of reach doesn't make a weapon's reach from 5' to 10', in other words it doesn't have a threatened space of 5' to 10', it is from 0' to 10'. It is extended. Reach is a purely beneficial weapon trait now. It appears all the talk of not attacking within 5' is a relic of old edition thinking.
I am restating this because it's been used as a reason several times. Reach is not a defined term. As a statistic on a sheet, it is a range. That range doesn't extend through total cover. The feat doesn't trigger by a line being crossed. Again, REACH is not a defined term except as a weapon quality. So practically speaking, if you can't *reach* a target for whatever reason, it doesn't mess with the feat. When something enters reach, hit it. Its a lot more simple than you guys are making it out to be.
Geometry of architecture ... Keep it simple. If you can't explain it to a child, you're wrong.
No it hasn't. The key issue is not where a polearm can attack, it's what "enter" means. Enter is moving from a space that is outside of reach to a space that is inside of reach. This is not the same as entering threatened area (it's often very similar, but it's not the same thing). If the creature happens to be unattackable when that trigger occurs, or the movement is of a type that doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, too bad, you don't get your PAM attack.
I will point out that moving within reach into total cover and then leaving reach DOES provoke.
So the inverse is true.
And it appears y'all arguing against me aren't acknowledging what REACH actually is. Are you saying you have reach on a creature in the ground beneath you?
Citation? RAW it doesn't, though there could be a sage advice somewhere. And yes, you have reach on a creature in the ground beneath you, you just can't attack it. Reach and threatened area aren't the same thing.
So let's take an extreme example.
A PAM with a spear is fighting beside, not in-front of, a closed door in a 5' hallway. There is another closed door across it. The fighter is in combat. An enemy opens the door, walks into the hall, attacks, opens the other door, walks through it, and closes the door, before walking away from the door.
No attack from the PAM by your interpretation.
I hope I'm not the only one seeing the absurdity.
This whole thing just seems like petty rules lawyering. It's not smart fighting, it's metagaming to undermine a player ability that a DM finds annoying.
This is a little OT but, seems like a good story to share. I played an ogre bowman in a game long ago and was able to down most enemies before they got to me. During one adventure, I wounded an enemy and he ran into a cave system. I tracked him for a while and eventually some of the passages were a tight fit. At this time, somehow my quarry had gotten well ahead of me but, a large cavebear popped up and was heading my way while I was moving through cramped quarters. My GM asked me what I was going to do with a mischievous grin and I knew I had just fell into my first of many metagaming traps. I reminded my GM that my bow was a minor magic item and couldn't be broken. I made a called shot to put out one of the bears eyes, taking a 75% penalty to hit. I rolled a natural 20 and thrust my bow into the bear's eye all the way to the back of it's skull. I took some mauling hits before the bear's death throes ended. My GM, looking satisfied that he had gotten my character to do something other than punch holes in enemies at range, awarded me max solo xp for a deadly encounter.
If you are unaware of the point of my story, it is this: Yes, you can do things as a DM that limit a player's abilities but, when that is the only purpose and it detracts from the enjoyment of the game, you're doing it wrong. If RAW rules lawyering is your justification, again, you're doing it wrong. My adventure WAS fun and even without luck, I had a better than fair chance against the bear.
You can't do that because it requires too many actions (you can open or close a door with a free interact, but you only get one of them), but if we assume automated doors, I don't see any absurdity there.
It really isn't. Using cover to get within the reach of a long weapon without being attacked is the kind of thing that works in reality, and doesn't even require anything close to total cover, it just requires something in the intervening space that prevents the polearm from freely swinging through that space (though on reflection, it doesn't make any sense that PAM works at all for non-reach weapons; it's dangerous to pass through enemy reach when your enemy has more reach than you, but not really when reach is equal).
The standard weapon for many a royal guard is a polearm, and they have dealt with mobs at wrestling range effectively. The 'long weapon' argument is not valid. Practically speaking, getting within reach of an opponent is a major threat when your reach is smaller, but you're still at risk of being hit inside that long reach. A skilled polearm wielder will not hold out their weapon as if set againt a charge. They will hack your head off or stab the chest more accurately when you're close. Old "get within reach" is a relic of old 3rd edition thinking, especially considering there are no 5' steps.
There is nothing preventing using a polearm to hit someone who's inside your reach. It just means you can't use a stop-thrust to hit them (which is what PAM is intended to represent AFAICT). Being strictly realistic, reach should be a switchable property that you can change on your turn (so you could choke up). And 'get within reach' is not a relic of 3rd edition, it's a term that exists entirely outside of the realm of D&D.
This is the text on the DnDBeyond app and the website through the sourcebook, but not from the feat list (yes, DNDB has a few different locations that have text that apparently don't talk to each other):
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.
It appears that there was an errata that changed PAM. It's in my newer copy of the PHB which is a few years old now. It clearly states that it must be the reach you have with the glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear that you are wielding for the OA upon entering the reach.
The feat list from the drop down of game rules>feats has the text you listed which is in my older, non corrected, & placed-in-sheet-protectors-in-a-binder PHB that also doesn't mention the spear. The only difference appears to be that the feat list mentions the spear.
This reading negates Cavalier's 10th level ability Hold the Line. PAM talks about entering reach and Hold the Line talks about moving within reach.
This is how I see it. If the polearm player is stressed about hitting the person coming around the corner, then they can ensure that they are 10 ft back of the corner.
This is probably the best explanation for the corner example. The player gets the OA but the target gets +2 to AC. This way the player gets to use their feat but gets a penalty for being in a position that is suboptimal for their build.
If you want to get as pedantic as possible, the player would only be able to see squares forward and probably the ones to the side (depending on whether someone thought to say that their character had terrible peripheral vision or not). This would mean that a character coming up from behind them wouldn't trigger a OA regardless of corners, terrain, manner of approach, etc and likewise wouldn't if someone managed to leave their reach in a direction that they weren't facing. Since facing isn't really incorporated into this edition, we basically ignore this fact unless we're using a house rule or a possible optional rule.
Edit: added multiquotes after changing to computer from phone.
Also, opportunity attack:
You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction.
Then, if I may be so obtuse, I will say that the RAW on this is dependent on how the GM considers reach, which several people have decided is defined, while I insist it is not. Bonus actions are defined. Ability modifiers are defined. Critical hits, cover, conditions, HD, HP, damage dice, are all defined. Reach is not- it says:
"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. ..." This does not say what reach is. It merely says that most creatures can reach 5'. Note it is speaking of what the creature in question can attack, which implies that if it can't attack it, they can't reach it. Invisibility is the exception.
What it comes down it to is how the GM interprets reach, then, and as NOBODY has been able to use rules to refute my point, it seems THIS is RAW:
If the GM sees reach as a measure in all directions regardless of impediments, then PAM doesn't provoke. If the GM sees reach as a potential maximum range of a melee combatant that doesn't go through impediments, then PAM does provoke.
This incidentally also determines if a character can provoke against burrowing creatures that don't leave holes and any other similar situation.
Reach is pretty clearly just a radius. Also, your version creates an anomaly:
For those who think the DM is some nefarious metagamer shutting down the poor player's feat, consider a character with PM and Sentinel are making these extra OAs every battle and probably nearly every round. I know because I DM for one. Getting around it every now and then is not the end of the world, and forcing the party to go to their plan B every now and then is vital to keep battles from being boring and stale.
A polearm user should position themselves advantageously. Being right behind a corner (or adjacent to a Wall of Sand that blocks line of sight in the case where it came up at my table) is just not smart positioning when you're wielding a polearm. Yes, you can attack anywhere within your reach. But the OA from PM is a special attack that occurs under special circumstances because your weapon is made to keep things at bay. If you want to argue that a guy with a 10 foot pole can counter a monster bursting out of the ground at his feet with the same effectiveness as someone approaching him head-on at the end of his weapon, knock yourself out. The RAW is very shaky, the RAI is clear as hell, and PM is still better than any other feat even when interpreted as unfavorably as possible.
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
I disagree entirely (obviously). When someone says they can reach 8' up, they aren't suggesting they can reach through a ceiling 5' up. The rules don't define it one way or the other.
About the anomaly, it's not really. The PAM can clearly reach the target in 3/4 cover, and should attack at that point (which is what should have happened in the OP's case). The actual question, though, still stands.
*edit: It's not about making optimal attacks, it's about actually getting the attack the feat entitles them to. Wtfdndadsaid it well: "It's not smart fighting, it's metagaming to undermine a player ability that a DM finds annoying."
If that were true, the debate would have died a long time ago.
I think you have to determine WHEN a creature enters reach, and I personally, do not think the rules are clear on that. A monster coming around a corner has total cover and cannot be targeted. Since it cannot be targeted, distance be darned, it has not entered reach. My weapon cannot reach it. My ruling would be that the creature enters reach as soon as it is eligible to be attacked and no earlier, and thus would enter reach at 5 foot and trigger the OA.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
@scatterbraind
PAM isn't made to keep monsters at bay. It is a reactive attack. Sentinel + PAM is certainly intended to do so in the player's mind, and the GM is the one who has to deal with it, just like every other powerful combination. The excessive power of a rules-legal thing isn't really a valid argument... until it tapers into absolute game-breaking, because then the rules need to be fixed. And that discussion about PAM + Sentinel has already been beaten hard. That still is a Very Bad reason to look for ways like this to weaken one of the feats.
And a polearm is a real weapon that is very effective at killing in the hands of an individual in close quarters fights, and are prevalent weapons of choice. Not like some Monster Hunter oversized thing that the user has to utilize leg muscle just to give it momentum. A glaive/halbred accurately weighs in at a measly 6 lbs. You can swing it with panache. You could cut your leg with it if you play with it, just like a sword. If you can easily cut your own leg accidentally, you can sure as heck ruin the day of a monster popping up next to you with the "expertise" that the feat represents.
I will give due credit, however. 5e pikes represent the extreme end, at 18 lbs should be about 20' long, which are strictly formation weapons, though they could be imagined in use against large monsters. That is the one weapon where your weapon argument holds weight (har har).
And yes, I am arguing that the reactive attack is just as effective at a wizard teleporting in, a monster popping up out of burrowing, a person jumping out from around a corner, and a person simply walking up. All of them are entering the polearm master's reach and the question of how they do so should not in any way circumvent the feat, with the possible exception of a cautious invisible target, but even that could be argued to be reactively attacked, RAI.
Entering reach /=/ moving into reach = entering reach. (rectangle /=/ square = rectangle)
We all know PAM is one of the strongest feats, and if you want to tone its power down, that's another discussion entirely. Don't use metagame gimmicks that will clearly make your player annoyed, especially one that is arguable. But if you're GM, feel free to say reach goes through walls, then the RAW is clear. Or do the inverse, RAW will still be clear.
Again, I'll go slightly off topic to attempt to make a point. If someone teleported right next to a Wizard and made an attack, would the Wizard get to use his reaction to cast Shield? Of course he would you say. Uh but, why? The rules don't even say you have to see the attack coming. What if the Wizard is blind or just a blinfolded character? Don't matter, RAW says he can do it. I mean, this ability actually says you get hit by an attack...then you turn back time shaking your finger, nuh uh u ain't hit me. LOL, and I love Shield!
To my mind, this is a much more extreme show of power than just letting some polearm bro get an AoO at 5 ft instead of 10 ft. If this is an apples to orange comparison for you, I understand. The purpose is to yet again call out RAW when you just blindly follow it or try to, it isn't always consistent or logical.