When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack.The weapon’s damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage.
For the glaive and halberd, it makes sense that the opposite end of those weapons deal less damage as the top end of those weapons have the pointy bits. BUT, why would a quarterstaff's butt-end do only d4? I mean, the top-end and butt-end are the same would they not? It's just a big long stick. Anyone else find that a little weird? As well, visually speaking, I dunno...I don't really see a quarterstaff qualifying as a polearm, at least not in the traditional sense.
Don't mind me, I still miss the old AD&D 2nd edition weapon listing, so much to choose from, LOL.
Here are potential reasons for why the quarterstaff does a d4 rather than something else in this particular situation:
The designers didn't feel like making the feat more complicated, and thus more difficult for someone to remember with complete accuracy, by adding an exception for the quarterstaff to do different damage.
Game balance being put at a higher priority than the much more difficult to achieve goal of simulation of reality (which is a constant with D&D, and most other table-top RPGs - especially since answering the question "what works for a game?" takes far less research than answering "how do these things behave in real life, and how do we emulate that accurately?" does).
The feat was designed with the classic pole-arms in mind, and quarterstaff was added to provide the feat a bit of use outside the exact circumstances of its apparent focus (like how Crossbow Expert is worded in a way that lets some features work with spell attacks, or how Great Weapon Master has a benefit that works with any melee weapon rather than only the "great" ones).
- your hand positioning being non-centred, thus giving the other end a smaller effective radius (the large swing radius of a staff is what tends to give it it’s lethalness in actual combat)
- using a short-end jab rather than the swing of a quarterstaff
It always seemed to me that you should be able to "dual wield" a quaterstaff, using the 1d6 single-handed damage. Personally, I'd allow that without the polearm master feat. As you said, with a halberd or whatever, the 1d4 damage makes sense since the weapon isn't really balanced for it.
So here's the thing with why I think using dual wield with some versatile weapons was out of design intent. First you would HAVE to have the dual wield feat to allow you to do non-light one handed weapons. When using a versatile weapon "dual wield" in two hands could qualify for other unintended bonuses (Like fighter Heavy Weapon fighting). And it opens up people to arguing "why don't I get my str/dex" on the off-hand portion? Additionally, it would make the wording of the first bonus of dual wield really tough and easy to break or expand if you started counting a single weapon held in each hand as two individual weapons. I think they wanted to have this kind of "dual" wielding to have more of a defensive feel with the extra attack being more secondary. Being able to use a reaction to hit when people enter range is HUGE. One way to reliably use up your reaction each turn on an attack. There are only a few ways to do that. Basically, if you want to dual wield a polearm-ish weapon you take Polearm Master. a little more offensive with the reaction attack on close (which is way more common then when running away). get a 1d4 + stat for bonus attack (arguably could be better than the non-stat adjusted off hand) If you want to dual wield swords, you take dual wield and use two non-heavy weapons (a bit better AC, but your offhand attack is arguably weaker with no stat bonus) anyone can dual wield two light weapons. Kind of ignoring fighting styles, because I think Dual Wield and Great Weapon Fighter kind of offset when paired with the appropriate build)
Why is the spear not on that list? What is it about attaching a sharp / pointy bit to the end of a quarterstaff which disqualifies you from attacking with the other end, and why is a spear somehow different from a glaive or halberd?
Why is the qualifier "only" present? If you use the attack action, attack multiple times with a quarterstaff, but use one of your 4 attacks to shove, or use your minotaur horns, or whatever, why does doing so disqualify you from using the bonus action?
Why does a feat which provides a consistently reliable bonus action melee attack exist only for those weapons, and come packaged into other great benefits as well, rather than being available for a variety of weapon types? Why, if you wish to use a shield and want a reliable bonus action attack, *must* you go of all things quarterstaff and shield and not mace and shield, sword and shield, or whatever else? Pommel or hilt strikes are possible with all weapons after all.
Why does this bonus attack automatically benefit from ability modifiers for damage, while dual wielding does not? Why does dual wielding not benefit from ability modifiers in the first place?
Sorry, polearm master makes zero sense to me from a design or balance standpoint, it raises a lot of questions in my book. As far as your specific ones, the others hit it on the head with balance, but also keep in mind it's supposed to represent a quick strike with the haft of the weapon, the end which is shortest and closest to you. When striking with a staff normally, you get the most power and damage from holding it near one end and maximizing its length and arc into a strike onto your opponent. Those types of strikes are included in those which deal 1d6 damage. Quick strikes with the short end of the weapon, smashing their face with the part right next to your hand, and other such strikes are included in the bonus attack 1d4 damage strikes. Not all attacks are made equal, after all. Think of it more like the "far end" and the "near end" and the variable damage makes a lot more sense.
Why is the spear not on that list? What is it about attaching a sharp / pointy bit to the end of a quarterstaff which disqualifies you from attacking with the other end, and why is a spear somehow different from a glaive or halberd?
Presumably, the attack with the other end comes after swinging the polearm in an arc, which isn't conducive to damage with a spear. The better question is why spears aren't included for the opportunity attack benefit.
Why is the qualifier "only" present? If you use the attack action, attack multiple times with a quarterstaff, but use one of your 4 attacks to shove, or use your minotaur horns, or whatever, why does doing so disqualify you from using the bonus action?
Probably to prevent weird situations where someone attacks 3 times with a greatsword, drops it, draws a glaive, and tries to cash in on the bonus action.
Why does a feat which provides a consistently reliable bonus action melee attack exist only for those weapons, and come packaged into other great benefits as well, rather than being available for a variety of weapon types? Why, if you wish to use a shield and want a reliable bonus action attack, *must* you go of all things quarterstaff and shield and not mace and shield, sword and shield, or whatever else? Pommel or hilt strikes are possible with all weapons after all.
Sure, and you could ask other good questions like why aren't there any penalties for attacking someone within 5' of you with a 10' polearm. Simple rules are better.
Why does this bonus attack automatically benefit from ability modifiers for damage, while dual wielding does not? Why does dual wielding not benefit from ability modifiers in the first place?
Anyone can use TWF without any sort of investment. Polearm Master requires an ASI.
Sorry, polearm master makes zero sense to me from a design or balance standpoint, it raises a lot of questions in my book.
Don't overthink it so much? It's just a thing you take to make your character better with polearms within the very abstract framework of D&D combat.
Why is the spear not on that list? What is it about attaching a sharp / pointy bit to the end of a quarterstaff which disqualifies you from attacking with the other end, and why is a spear somehow different from a glaive or halberd?
Presumably, the attack with the other end comes after swinging the polearm in an arc, which isn't conducive to damage with a spear. The better question is why spears aren't included for the opportunity attack benefit.
To be fair, it's at minimum as conducive to damage as it would be if done with a quarterstaff :-)
So the feat reads:
For the glaive and halberd, it makes sense that the opposite end of those weapons deal less damage as the top end of those weapons have the pointy bits. BUT, why would a quarterstaff's butt-end do only d4? I mean, the top-end and butt-end are the same would they not? It's just a big long stick. Anyone else find that a little weird? As well, visually speaking, I dunno...I don't really see a quarterstaff qualifying as a polearm, at least not in the traditional sense.
Don't mind me, I still miss the old AD&D 2nd edition weapon listing, so much to choose from, LOL.
Here are potential reasons for why the quarterstaff does a d4 rather than something else in this particular situation:
It could do less damage by:
- your hand positioning being non-centred, thus giving the other end a smaller effective radius (the large swing radius of a staff is what tends to give it it’s lethalness in actual combat)
- using a short-end jab rather than the swing of a quarterstaff
Ah yeah, I can see that from a game balancing stand point.
It always seemed to me that you should be able to "dual wield" a quaterstaff, using the 1d6 single-handed damage. Personally, I'd allow that without the polearm master feat. As you said, with a halberd or whatever, the 1d4 damage makes sense since the weapon isn't really balanced for it.
So here's the thing with why I think using dual wield with some versatile weapons was out of design intent. First you would HAVE to have the dual wield feat to allow you to do non-light one handed weapons. When using a versatile weapon "dual wield" in two hands could qualify for other unintended bonuses (Like fighter Heavy Weapon fighting). And it opens up people to arguing "why don't I get my str/dex" on the off-hand portion? Additionally, it would make the wording of the first bonus of dual wield really tough and easy to break or expand if you started counting a single weapon held in each hand as two individual weapons.
I think they wanted to have this kind of "dual" wielding to have more of a defensive feel with the extra attack being more secondary. Being able to use a reaction to hit when people enter range is HUGE. One way to reliably use up your reaction each turn on an attack. There are only a few ways to do that.
Basically, if you want to dual wield a polearm-ish weapon you take Polearm Master. a little more offensive with the reaction attack on close (which is way more common then when running away). get a 1d4 + stat for bonus attack (arguably could be better than the non-stat adjusted off hand)
If you want to dual wield swords, you take dual wield and use two non-heavy weapons (a bit better AC, but your offhand attack is arguably weaker with no stat bonus)
anyone can dual wield two light weapons.
Kind of ignoring fighting styles, because I think Dual Wield and Great Weapon Fighter kind of offset when paired with the appropriate build)
Here's a few more puzzles for you:
Why is the spear not on that list? What is it about attaching a sharp / pointy bit to the end of a quarterstaff which disqualifies you from attacking with the other end, and why is a spear somehow different from a glaive or halberd?
Why is the qualifier "only" present? If you use the attack action, attack multiple times with a quarterstaff, but use one of your 4 attacks to shove, or use your minotaur horns, or whatever, why does doing so disqualify you from using the bonus action?
Why does a feat which provides a consistently reliable bonus action melee attack exist only for those weapons, and come packaged into other great benefits as well, rather than being available for a variety of weapon types? Why, if you wish to use a shield and want a reliable bonus action attack, *must* you go of all things quarterstaff and shield and not mace and shield, sword and shield, or whatever else? Pommel or hilt strikes are possible with all weapons after all.
Why does this bonus attack automatically benefit from ability modifiers for damage, while dual wielding does not? Why does dual wielding not benefit from ability modifiers in the first place?
Sorry, polearm master makes zero sense to me from a design or balance standpoint, it raises a lot of questions in my book. As far as your specific ones, the others hit it on the head with balance, but also keep in mind it's supposed to represent a quick strike with the haft of the weapon, the end which is shortest and closest to you. When striking with a staff normally, you get the most power and damage from holding it near one end and maximizing its length and arc into a strike onto your opponent. Those types of strikes are included in those which deal 1d6 damage. Quick strikes with the short end of the weapon, smashing their face with the part right next to your hand, and other such strikes are included in the bonus attack 1d4 damage strikes. Not all attacks are made equal, after all. Think of it more like the "far end" and the "near end" and the variable damage makes a lot more sense.
Presumably, the attack with the other end comes after swinging the polearm in an arc, which isn't conducive to damage with a spear. The better question is why spears aren't included for the opportunity attack benefit.
Probably to prevent weird situations where someone attacks 3 times with a greatsword, drops it, draws a glaive, and tries to cash in on the bonus action.
Sure, and you could ask other good questions like why aren't there any penalties for attacking someone within 5' of you with a 10' polearm. Simple rules are better.
Anyone can use TWF without any sort of investment. Polearm Master requires an ASI.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The good thing is that Feats are optional in 5e and exist mainly to emulate Third and Fourth edition for those players used to having Feats.