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...