D&D 5E Have we misunderstood the shield and sword fighter (or warrior)?

[FitzTheRuke]

This is 100% cheese. Seriously people. Just no.

I'd never noticed it before now, but I'm okay with it. I mean, I'm not fond of the "spin it around" fluff (which would be both slower and weaker than just stabbing again with your spear). But it makes for a good spear-and-shield fighter, which was a very common historical reality for a reason: It's an excellent fighting style. The game doesn't make it very good without this feat, and this feat in no way makes it broken.

So what's the problem? The fluff? (I agree with you on that). So change the fluff. Hit 'em with your shield.

 

[Charlaquin]

And yet very plausible.

I really have no clue why the concept bothers people so much. The damage is only 1d4 after all....

The concept of using a spear or staff one-handed with a shield doesn’t bother me at all; it’s not only possible, but a classic fighting style. It does bother me that the bonus action attack is specifically described as being made with the butt end of the weapon; while there are definitely cases for using the butt end of a polearm, most of them involve both hands on the weapon, and in any case two quick thrusts would be faster anyway. Fortunately, it’s easy enough to ignore that little bit of fluff and narrate it in a more plausible way. Regardless, it’s very clear that the bonus action attack is intended to be usable while wielding a spear or staff one-handed, and it’s not at all unbalanced.

 

[Ancalagon]

I edited my OP to make my central point clear: Sword and Shield is a bit better to compensate for the lack of feats

 

[FitzTheRuke]

They probably should have named it "pole weapon master".

Very few things in D&D have perfect names. Names are just supposed to be labels to remember the thing, not the best or the only description.

 

[Charlaquin]

Im going to assume you are trolling because no one could assume that this is anything other than a blatant rules exploit.

It’s perfectly balanced (as all things should be) compared to PAM using a two-handed polearm. The mental image is a little odd, but mechanically speaking it’s perfectly fair and reasonable.

 

[FrogReaver]

I edited my OP to make my central point clear: Sword and Shield is a bit better to compensate for the lack of feats

FWIW I thought that your OP was clear. It was just easier to reply to the simple posts before dealing with that more complex point.

 

[Charlaquin]

Last time I looked staves and spears were not polearms...ever.

They are literally arms with poles, and they are explicitly allowed to be used with the feat.

 

[niklinna]

I edited my OP to make my central point clear: Sword and Shield is a bit better to compensate for the lack of feats

Which you could rephrase as, Sword and Shield is a bit better because you don't need feats to make it viable.

 

[Oofta]

This is 100% cheese. Seriously people. Just no.

Yeah, PAM holding a weapon 1 handed is banned. One of my few house rules.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'd never noticed it before now, but I'm okay with it. I mean, I'm not fond of the "spin it around" fluff (which would be both slower and weaker than just stabbing again with your spear). But it makes for a good spear-and-shield fighter, which was a very common historical reality for a reason: It's an excellent fighting style. The game doesn't make it very good without this feat, and this feat in no way makes it broken.

So what's the problem? The fluff? (I agree with you on that). So change the fluff. Hit 'em with your shield.

Mechanically, I am 100% ok with a spear fighter getting one "quick extra jab" doing a bit less damage. Twirling the spear around one handed? uuuugh.

I think making a "butt attack" was probably a mistake in the first place - while the "bo" style of staff fighting with both ends is legit and does exist, in the west both quarterstaves and polearms a grip designed to maximized reach. Another "bonus" for being a polearm master probably would have been better...

 

[DND_Reborn]

The concept of using a spear or staff one-handed with a shield doesn’t bother me at all; it’s not only possible, but a classic fighting style. It does bother me that the bonus action attack is specifically described as being made with the butt end of the weapon; while there are definitely cases for using the butt end of a polearm, most of them involve both hands on the weapon, and in any case two quick thrusts would be faster anyway. Fortunately, it easy enough to ignore that little bit of fluff and narrate it in a more plausible way. Regardless, it’s very clear that the bonus action attack is intended to be usable while wielding a spear or staff one-handed, and it’s not at all unbalanced.

Holding the spear (or staff...) with one-hand and doing a reverse spin to swing the butt-end around is easy enough. It isn't as effective (hence the low damage), but can catch an opponent off guard.

I had a PC who was a spear/shield ranger with Dueling and STR 18 and PAM, so the butt-end damage was d4+6.

 

[Ancalagon]

FWIW I thought that your OP was clear. It was just easier to reply to the simple posts before dealing with that more complex point.

thank you - it was pretty heavily implied, but I felt making it explicit would be better.

I think the other point I was making is that a dex built sword and shield better is a lot more fun, unless your fun is doing massive damage, but that's more of a personal preference and less "discussable"

 

[Ancalagon]

Holding the spear (or staff...) with one-hand and doing a reverse spin to swing the butt-end around is easy enough. It isn't as effective (hence the low damage), but can catch an opponent off guard.

I had a PC who was a spear/shield ranger with Dueling and STR 18 and PAM, so the butt-end damage was d4+6.

We had a bugbear barbarian (got disintegrated by a Trump beholder... RIP Goruk!) with a halberd and GWM. The butt-end damage was... 1d4+17?

 

[Oofta]

If PAM is okay using a spear 1 handed, why isn't it okay if holding a sword or hitting someone with the shield? Whacking some with the pommel or cross guard of the sword was absolutely a thing.

It's not the ability to get the bonus attack that bothers me per se, it's the weirdly narrow application.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We had a bugbear barbarian (got disintegrated by a Trump beholder... RIP Goruk!) with a halberd and GWM. The butt-end damage was... 1d4+17?

At 1st level?

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's not the ability to get the bonus attack that bothers me per se, it's the weirdly narrow application.

Yeah, bonus action attacks with pommels and shields should be a standard thing IMO.

 

[Mirtek]

Im going to assume you are trolling because no one could assume that this is anything other than a blatant rules exploit.

This is 100% cheese. Seriously people. Just no.

Heck, you even get your +2 damage from dueling style on all attacks

 

[Ancalagon]

At 1st level?

oh no, that was at higher level and a game where we got an extra feat.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

For Sword and Shield specifically, I think the Shield doesn't give enough of a benefit to make up for the huge difference in damage if feats are involved, at least for a Fighter. Without feats, it should be better, yeah.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Thats why I love AD&D. Sword and Shield is better because AC is king over HP. You DON'T want to get hit. No matter how many levels you have cause PCs had about half the HP they have now and healing and raising dead wasn't as plentiful.