Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Technical & Gameplay Problems Justice for polearm master

This was submitted ad-nauseum through official platform, reddit and discord, but I'll try again here.

Polearm master didn't work for me since release.

Polearm master:
- doesn't apply relevant damage modifiers to extra attack. Eg adds str for bound warlock weapon,ie it should add charisma.
- no damage riders/additional damage sources get applied

Sentinel:
- target keeps moving after getting into the range of opportunity attack, this makes this feat useless with polearm master.

Regards,
Larian, pls fix

Agreed. I�m postponing my playthrough because of bugs like this.

I have a full playthrough with a polearm/sentinel char.

Not sure I understand. The bonus attack it�s like a mundane staff attack, I think it�s intended not getting the additional damage applied to the main attack. The description mentions it is an attack with the other end of the polearm and somehow it also seems like it�s not bound, just like it was a second separate weapon. I think it would have been too much if it was a FULL attack like the main one, it would have been better than any other feat, think of two weapon fighting for example.

On the other hand, when you approach an enemy with a polearm himself, you get the triggering message and if you answer yes you get attacked, if you answer no you don�t get attacked by the the enemy opportunity attack. This, even if intended (countering enemy polearm), is not specified in the desciption and it�s actually confusing as the triggering message is the same you get when your opportunity attack is triggered.

Sentinel: you sure intend when the opportunity attack hits? Of course coming into range is not enough, you have to hit the enemy, i.e. your opportunity attack should still be available and it should connect.

Bonus attack modifier:
http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/feat:polearm-master

PHB text is similar?

When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear, 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.

As I read it yes, it should apply Str ability modifier. Not sure about Cha in case of Warlock, cause you may assume the end of the weapon is not bound like I did (hard to say if intended or not). I also played a Warlock. Damage seems to be fixed, no damage riders normally applied to main attack. Agan, a full second attack would have been too much in my opinion, considering you get this bonus each time (on top of the opportunity attack chance).

Well, this is how I made peace with my playthrough at least.

You have 3attack palalock,tb throwers and tb monk. It won't get worse. Life drinker/gwm should apply to the bonus attack tho as per tabletop. Right now bonus attack gets -5 to roll from gwm but not +10 to dmg

Didn�t check with GWM as I didn�t select it. But according to what you say, are you sure it�s not intended? Damage for polearm bonus attack is fixed as per description. While primary attack value applies to the bonus attack roll, including the -5 penalty if GWM is active. Not a great deal.

Tabletop text doesn�t seems to resolve this, unless there are FAQs going in deeper details for this kind of combination.

I�m just reading text in a certain way, not saying it�s the right interpretation.

According to everyone in tabletop community the gwm + lifedrinker should apply. At least that's the impression I got on dnd communities online when similar question is asked

If I was the designer, I would also rule Cha modifier for bound weapon and +10 dmg if the -5 att from GWM is applied. Other damage bonuses it depends (flaming spear with +1d4 fire? probably not on the opposite end of the weapon. But generic magical +2? I would say yes).

Ultimately tabletop rules are relatively important considering Larian made a lot of adaptations. I also saw this topic many times, I can only infer if no patch addressed it so far that Larian intends the feat to work like it does for balance reasons.