Does a Polearm Master at reach count as adjacent for Sneak Attack?

Question

The 5E rules allow the rogue to get his sneak attack when there's any ally adjacent (within 5') to the target enemy. Question about letter and intent of the RAW. If the party has a fighter with the pole arm master feat (creating threat out to 10'), is the rogue supposed to be able to sneak attack an enemy so harried?

Answer 1

An ally with the Polearm Master feat has no bearing on the rogue's sneak attack.

Sneak Attack says:

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it...

Sneak Attack clearly states that an enemy of the target (the fighter) needs to be within 5 feet of the target. If the fighter is standing 10 feet away then they aren't standing within 5 feet of the target so the rogue is unable to use Sneak Attack. It doesn't matter that the fighter's reach is 10 feet, they still need to be adjacent the the target for the rogue to get Sneak Attack.

Answer 2

RAW: No, partly because you've only partially paraphrased the Sneak Attack.

Sneak Attack Once per turn you can deal an extra Xd6 if you have advantage on the attack roll. (PHB) Advantage isn't required if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it.

The easiest method for the rogue to gain advantage is to set up a Flanking condition, if allowed by the DM (DMG 251). The rogue and fighter must be on opposite sides of the target to gain advantage.

Otherwise the fighter only needs to be adjacent to the target. If you're using a grid, adjacent in this context is base to base contact, whether on a square or hexed grid.

Answer 3

RAW no, Sneak Attack says:

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it...

RAI hard to say without a Sage Advice/FAQ answer that states their intent. The latest version is here https://media.dnd.wizards.com/upload/articles/SA_Compendium.pdf and the only mentions for Sneak Attack concern multiple uses per round and a confirmation that rogue/monk unarmed strikes do not count as being eligible.

That being said, as a DM I would rule that melee range is a reasonable substitute for 5'.

Answer 4

The Master is not adjacent...

but the Pole Arm itself could be considered an enemy

The rules for Sneak Attack (emphasis mine) say:

Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe’s distraction. Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.

The 'flavor' of Sneak Attack is that the rogue is 'exploiting a foe's distraction'; while the foe has their attention elsewhere, even if momentarily, the rogue is able to land a particularly telling blow. In terms of the narrative, I find it pretty reasonable that someone waving an axe blade at my face would distract me from the rogue with the bow across the room. And I find it reasonable that someone standing slightly farther away from me but waving a glaive blade just as close to my face would be equally distracting. If you (as a DM) agree, the question then becomes not whether this is reasonable, but whether it is RAW - could a pole arm wielder from ten feet away permit a rogue a Sneak Attack on their common target?

The rules for Sneak Attack specify that to qualify,

You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll.

The two possibilities are either for the Rogue to have advantage¹, or for the rogue to not have disadvantage while the target has a non-Incapacitated enemy within five feet. Assuming the rogue does not already have advantage, they then need an enemy of their target within five feet of the target. Clearly the pole arm master themselves does not qualify, because they are at more than five feet, explicitly too great a distance for the definition of Sneak Attack.

But what of the pole arm itself? If the pole arm is within five feet of the target, can it count as an "enemy", even though it is an inanimate object and not a creature? (we don't have to worry about whether or not it is Incapacitated, since as an object it is not affected by Conditions) This might seem like an odd question, and your first response might be 'of course the weapon isn't an enemy, it's not a creature'. However, a deep dive of RAW demonstrates that there is no definition of what an 'enemy' is in 5e, that there is no statement that only creatures can be enemies, and that there is at least some implicit evidence for non-creatures being referred to as enemies, much as we do in natural English. Thus, a DM who wishes to permit a target to be sufficiently distracted by a reach weapon for Sneak Attack, can do so without contradicting RAW. This is not a rule, but it is a justifiable ruling.

There is no in-game definition of "enemy"

Unfortunately, the 5e rules do not define what is an "enemy". Lacking a definition, we can next² look for actual uses of the word within the rules.

Usage within the rules is not limited to creatures

Looking within the PHB, we do find a number of instances in which an "enemy" must be a creature and not an object: "killing every enemy" (p.8), the Totemic Attunement (Bear) class ability (p. 50), the Warding Flare class ability (p. 61), the Abjure Enemy class feature (p.88), the Favored Enemy class feature (p.91), "to intimidate an enemy" (p. 175), the rules for movement (p. 191), the rules for opportunity attacks (p. 195), the rules for cover (p. 196), and the Speak with the Dead spell (p. 277). It is clear that 'enemy' usually refers to a creature, but there is nothing that says that enemies must be creatures in all instances.

On the other hand, there are also multiple instances of the phrase "enemy creature": in the Holy Nimbus class feature (p. 86), the Elder Champion class feature (p.87), the Avenging Angel class feature (p.88), and the Sanctuary spell (p. 274). If an enemy could only be a creature, then the phrase 'enemy creature' would be redundant and unnecessary. All of these instances could just say 'an enemy' instead, if it was not important to distinguish that their effects apply to only enemy creatures, and not other enemies.

Pointing out that a phrase is redundant, however, is not the same as establishing that the rules ever use 'enemy' to refer to something that is not a creature. But they do this, as well. In the PHB we have "enemy ranks" (p. 112) and "enemy armies" (p. 117), while within the DMG we can find "enemy country" (p. 125).

Could a pole arm count as an 'enemy'?

Certainly a weapon being used to attack someone fits the natural English definition of an enemy:

something harmful or deadly
alcohol was his greatest enemy³

Being attacked by a pole arm is distracting to the target and could legitimately aid the rogue in their attack. The rules do not explicitly state that enemies must be creatures, and the presence of terms like 'enemy creature' and 'enemy country' implies that non-creatures may be counted as enemies. If the Sneak Attack meant to imply that only creatures could distract a target, and not objects, it could have used the phrase 'enemy creature' to clarify intent, just as the four other features cited above did in the PHB. A DM is not violating RAW by choosing to rule that a polearm menacing a target provides sufficient distraction for a Rogue to use Sneak Attack on that target - they are merely making a ruling in what is an ambiguous case.

---

¹_{Of course, "The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result." (PHB "Advantage and Disadvantage"). Even if a DM did not want to declare the pole arm itself an enemy, they could simply say that being attacked in melee from any distance is a circumstance distracting enough to permit the rogue advantage, which would then allow Sneak Attack. For that matter, combat on a grid is itself an optional variant, not RAW, and a DM using "theatre of the mind" will naturally have to adjudicate what represents a distraction without reference to an enemy within five feet. There are lots of RAW ways to get to the pole arm attack permitting Sneak Attack, but since declaring the weapon itself to be an enemy requires the most detailed examination of the rules, that is what I am emphasizing in this answer.}

²_{Personally, I try to work within the following hierarchical framework when interpreting a word: (1) Is it a game term? If not, (2) Are there multiple, consistent context clues from its use in core books or official rulings? If not, (3) can designer intent be inferred through unofficial statements? If not, (4) what normal English meaning seems closest to the way it is used within the rules?}

³ _{Or, as Frank Sinatra is supposed to have said, “Alcohol may be man's worst enemy, but the bible says love your enemy.”}