With the new 2024 rules, if i have a flametongue glaive and have polearm master that would mean that not only do I gain the additional fire damage with the blade end of the glaive but also gain it when hitting with the butt end of the glaive. RAW= While holding this magic weapon, you can take a Bonus Action and use a command word to cause flames to engulf the damage-dealing part of the weapon. Since, as written, the butt end of the polearm still is a damage dealing part of the weapon, I think the additional 2d6 would also apply.
The bonus action can be cast either at the start of the turn, or prior to combat with no need to do it every round so you would still get the bonus action use of the Pole Strike.
Polearm master RAW - Pole Strike. Immediately after you take the Attack action and attack with a Quarterstaff, a Spear, or a weapon that has the Heavy and Reach properties, you can use a Bonus Action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon deals Bludgeoning damage, and the weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4.
Yes, and PAM's bonus attack also works with Elemental Weapon and the Chromatic Infusion effect from the Gift Of The Chromatic Dragon feat. pixel car racer mod apk
Its not working for me. Am I the only one having this bug or I have to activate the PAM's abilities to get it.
I mean, in terms of a Beyond character sheet I'd say it's a bug/oversight- the feat's extra attack is independent of what specific weapon you have (it's always a 1d4 damage die, rather than being determined by the weapon), so it doesn't talk to the magic item block to know it needs extra damage.
I think it depend on the weapon because "flames to engulf the damage-dealing part of the weapon". If it was a Halberd or a Glaive that would be the Blade, so the I don't think the extra damage would apply to the Pole Strike from Polearm Master. If it was Quarterstaff the the "damage-dealing part" would be both ends, so a Pole Strike with a Quarterstaff would get the extra damage. At least that how I would rule it, but ultimately it will be up to each DM. I think it's legit to rule it both ways.
A Polearm Master opposite end of the weapon isn't a damage-dealing part of the weapon until you use a Bonus Action to make a melee attack with it so it shouldn't be engulfed in flame with Flame Tongue Bonus Action.
I could see a case made for the Quarterstaff for having two damage-dealing part.
A DM could rule similarly for a Flame Tongue Quarterstaff if judging when it engulf the damage-dealing part of the weapon it's not plurial but singular end of it.
If I try to envision a Flame Tongue Glaive, I envision the blade being the part on fire. If I try to think of a Flame Tongue Quarterstaff, I think it would be pretty cool it both ends were on fire, but if someone else see it differently or think it's too powerful, then I have no problem with that.
It tracks but NGL I hate this approach to the game and the rules. The butt end of the glaive is not designed as a weapon or damage dealing section primarily.
In my campaign, only the actual blade of the glaive would deal additional fire damage.
I can understand the not liking it, but there are many things that have updated wording and the removal of the word blade from the descriptor in 2024 and replacing it with the damage dealing part of the weapon is fully legit with polearm master. I'm a DM, I understand the hate, believe me but if a player sacrifices an ASI, or another feat to take polearm master with that wording, why not allow it? This isnt applied in this way to all weapons as they dont all attack with wording that allows you to make an attack with the butt end of a polearm, it is very specific. Polearms take 2 hands, they dont have a shield, there are many trade offs to allow for this imo. We all play it different. I respect all the opinions provided here for sure. I am also sure that most DMs would shut this out, but if your heros are to be heros, let them do cool things that normal peeps in the world cant do is it really that bad?
It tracks but NGL I hate this approach to the game and the rules. The butt end of the glaive is not designed as a weapon or damage dealing section primarily.
In my campaign, only the actual blade of the glaive would deal additional fire damage.
Yeah, this would be how I'd handle it too
RAW the combo works, but it's very clearly not supposed to be RAI
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I can understand the not liking it, but there are many things that have updated wording and the removal of the word blade from the descriptor in 2024 and replacing it with the damage dealing part of the weapon is fully legit with polearm master.
That was done because in 2014 Flame-Tongue was limited to swords, and in 2024 it can be any melee weapon -- and not all weapons have blades
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Seems pretty obvious that the intent is for just the blade of a polearm to be aflame, and its butt is normally not a damage dealing end of the weapon. The feat allows you to strike with it, but it is not the flaming end.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
"Seems pretty obvious" that if the effect wasn't intended to work with the bonus action attack granted by PAM or other abilities, it would have been written in a way that specifically excluded them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"Seems pretty obvious" that if the effect wasn't intended to work with the bonus action attack granted by PAM or other abilities, it would have been written in a way that specifically excluded them.
The most obvious explanation here is that the interaction didn't occur to them when they rewrote the entry. Not that it was designed to interact with PAM
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What Anton said. Again, taking the approach of parsing the sentence like it was a legal contract simply isn't the approach to the game that I enjoy, but YMMV.
"Seems pretty obvious" that if the effect wasn't intended to work with the bonus action attack granted by PAM or other abilities, it would have been written in a way that specifically excluded them.
The most obvious explanation here is that the interaction didn't occur to them when they rewrote the entry. Not that it was designed to interact with PAM
They could have easily written PAM to state that the bonus attack didn't benefit from spells and special abilities that added weapon damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
What Anton said. Again, taking the approach of parsing the sentence like it was a legal contract simply isn't the approach to the game that I enjoy, but YMMV.
And so instead of going with the simple “attacks with this weapon do X additional damage”, we’re going to quibble over the mechanical implications of the fluff description?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With the new 2024 rules, if i have a flametongue glaive and have polearm master that would mean that not only do I gain the additional fire damage with the blade end of the glaive but also gain it when hitting with the butt end of the glaive. RAW= While holding this magic weapon, you can take a Bonus Action and use a command word to cause flames to engulf the damage-dealing part of the weapon. Since, as written, the butt end of the polearm still is a damage dealing part of the weapon, I think the additional 2d6 would also apply.
The bonus action can be cast either at the start of the turn, or prior to combat with no need to do it every round so you would still get the bonus action use of the Pole Strike.
Polearm master RAW - Pole Strike. Immediately after you take the Attack action and attack with a Quarterstaff, a Spear, or a weapon that has the Heavy and Reach properties, you can use a Bonus Action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. The weapon deals Bludgeoning damage, and the weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4.
Does this track with everyone?
No language restricting it to the Attack Action or anything, so I believe you're good comboing it with PAM.
Yes, and PAM's bonus attack also works with Elemental Weapon and the Chromatic Infusion effect from the Gift Of The Chromatic Dragon feat.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Its not working for me. Am I the only one having this bug or I have to activate the PAM's abilities to get it.
I mean, in terms of a Beyond character sheet I'd say it's a bug/oversight- the feat's extra attack is independent of what specific weapon you have (it's always a 1d4 damage die, rather than being determined by the weapon), so it doesn't talk to the magic item block to know it needs extra damage.
I think it depend on the weapon because "flames to engulf the damage-dealing part of the weapon". If it was a Halberd or a Glaive that would be the Blade, so the I don't think the extra damage would apply to the Pole Strike from Polearm Master. If it was Quarterstaff the the "damage-dealing part" would be both ends, so a Pole Strike with a Quarterstaff would get the extra damage. At least that how I would rule it, but ultimately it will be up to each DM. I think it's legit to rule it both ways.
A Polearm Master opposite end of the weapon isn't a damage-dealing part of the weapon until you use a Bonus Action to make a melee attack with it so it shouldn't be engulfed in flame with Flame Tongue Bonus Action.
I could see a case made for the Quarterstaff for having two damage-dealing part.
A DM could rule similarly for a Flame Tongue Quarterstaff if judging when it engulf the damage-dealing part of the weapon it's not plurial but singular end of it.
If I try to envision a Flame Tongue Glaive, I envision the blade being the part on fire. If I try to think of a Flame Tongue Quarterstaff, I think it would be pretty cool it both ends were on fire, but if someone else see it differently or think it's too powerful, then I have no problem with that.
It tracks but NGL I hate this approach to the game and the rules. The butt end of the glaive is not designed as a weapon or damage dealing section primarily.
In my campaign, only the actual blade of the glaive would deal additional fire damage.
I can understand the not liking it, but there are many things that have updated wording and the removal of the word blade from the descriptor in 2024 and replacing it with the damage dealing part of the weapon is fully legit with polearm master. I'm a DM, I understand the hate, believe me but if a player sacrifices an ASI, or another feat to take polearm master with that wording, why not allow it? This isnt applied in this way to all weapons as they dont all attack with wording that allows you to make an attack with the butt end of a polearm, it is very specific. Polearms take 2 hands, they dont have a shield, there are many trade offs to allow for this imo. We all play it different. I respect all the opinions provided here for sure. I am also sure that most DMs would shut this out, but if your heros are to be heros, let them do cool things that normal peeps in the world cant do is it really that bad?
Yeah, this would be how I'd handle it too
RAW the combo works, but it's very clearly not supposed to be RAI
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That was done because in 2014 Flame-Tongue was limited to swords, and in 2024 it can be any melee weapon -- and not all weapons have blades
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Seems like a pretty fine semantic hair that a magic weapon can't respond to any part of it being used to deal damage, imo.
Seems pretty obvious that the intent is for just the blade of a polearm to be aflame, and its butt is normally not a damage dealing end of the weapon. The feat allows you to strike with it, but it is not the flaming end.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
"Seems pretty obvious" that if the effect wasn't intended to work with the bonus action attack granted by PAM or other abilities, it would have been written in a way that specifically excluded them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The most obvious explanation here is that the interaction didn't occur to them when they rewrote the entry. Not that it was designed to interact with PAM
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What Anton said. Again, taking the approach of parsing the sentence like it was a legal contract simply isn't the approach to the game that I enjoy, but YMMV.
They could have easily written PAM to state that the bonus attack didn't benefit from spells and special abilities that added weapon damage.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
And so instead of going with the simple “attacks with this weapon do X additional damage”, we’re going to quibble over the mechanical implications of the fluff description?