P o l e a r m M a s t e r
You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons.
You gain the following benefits:
• 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. The weapon’s damage die for this attack
is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.
• While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff,
other creatures provoke an opportunity attack
from you when they enter your reach.
The spear should also apply to the second bullet point. There is no reason that I can see that both pikes and quarterstaffs provoke an opportunity attack while spears do not? The pike is piercing like a spear and the quarterstaff lacks reach and can be wielded one-handed like a spear; therefore, it seems logical that a spear should benefit from this feat.
Also, the quarterstaff should have to be wielded with two hands to benefit from the extra d4 in my opinion, since all other weapons on that list require two hands.
Additionally, the reach property should not apply to the bonus d4 damage for any weapon.
Maybe because the spear can be thrown, too? I dunno, seems like a good house rule to me.
Spears are already the optimal choice for monks under level 10. They don't need any more power.
RCanine wrote:
Garuun wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Garuun wrote:
I understand monk weapons to be those detailed in previous editions like: kama, shurikan, nunchaku, monk spade, etc (The spear was not in this category). The 5e phb is quite vague on this point, however.
edit: on looking over the monk class more thoroughly, I see that I am altogether mistaken.
"At 1st level, your practice o f martial arts gives you mastery o f combat styles that use unarmed strikes and monk w eapons, which are shortswords and any simple melee weapons that don’t have the two-handed or heavy property."
I stand corrected.
I would argue, however, that a quarterstaff is as good as the spear as a monk weapon minus being able to throw it. The advantage of the quarterstaff with the polearm master feat is that it would get the d4 additional strike while the spear would not.
Also, I think dual wielding handaxes is arguably a stronger choice for using monk weapons.
I would agree. Both with Polearm Master being usable with pikes and spears, and with requiring versatile weapons to be held in two hands when gaining the extra attack with the butt end.
I'd also probably say that the butt-strike attack wouldn't have the reach property, even if the weapon did.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Garuun wrote:
shivafang wrote:
shivafang wrote:
RyndarLocke wrote:
This feat (which I love and think is awesome) has always struck me as odd in terms of which weapons it allows. I would at least say that it should allow the butt-end attack for a pike. Historically, the question of which one is a halberd, which is glaive/guisarm/billhook/pike/voulge are way too fluid to be worth differentiating for a game like this. Functionally, a glaive and a halberd are identical (in the game) and a pike is just a glaive/halberd that you stab with instead of cut with. So why no butt attack?
And martially speaking, you can totally execute a butt attack with a pike, at least as easily as you could with a halberd. Just a matter of practice (I.E. Taking the feat 
)
I don't think it is comparable... using the butt of a pike as the butt of a halberd. The pike is used for stabbing, when you pull back the head, the butt gets even farther from the enemy. Trying to wheel around a pike to use the butt would be cumbersome and nearly impossible.
The halberd is used to cut, thus pulling back the head the butt gets closer to the enemy, and could even be the same motion as the butt-attack. (ala quarter staff)
I think the Pike should have been given the Lance treatment with disadv with 5'.
Whats up with the weight...?? 18 pounds? Its 3 x more than a halberd, or lance? Almost twice that of a maul...??