Depends on the edition. By 2e's Complete Fighter's Handbook, it was perfectly possible to have a guy wearing leather armor with an AC of 0 at level 1, no shield required, so it wasn't really hard to get low AC.
D&D 5E Have we misunderstood the shield and sword fighter (or warrior)?
FitzTheRuke
Legend
Oh, I know. I'm actually decently proficient with pole weapons. And I can spin 'em around pretty fancy, too! But the uses in combat for spinning them around are a lot less common than a lot of people think. (Most often, IME, used for blocking/guarding if you happen to be attacked while readying another thrust.) If the opportunity presents itself, sure, you'd strike with the "wrong" end, but it's generally an act of desperation, or rare opportunity.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
FWIW, a 1E UA Barbarian with DEX 18 in leather armor had AC 0 at level 1 since they got double AC bonus if not wearing bulky or fairly bulky armor.
That's fair too, I always forget the Barbarian because their limitations made them too hard to play.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Oh no, I loved those limitations. Leveling wasn't even too much of a problem with the whole destroying magic items thing.
And the Barbarian Horde! So much fun.
W'rkncacnter
Hero
in what world is a spear NOT a polearm??? it's THE polearm
edit: oh god so much was posted in between the time i read this thread and when i went to post
Well other than not being able to trust a cleric until what, 5th level? Even d12 hit dice won't help you when two good hits from an orc has you stuck recuperating in an inn for a fortnight!Oh no, I loved those limitations. Leveling wasn't even too much of a problem with the whole destroying magic items thing.
And the Barbarian Horde! So much fun.
Digdude
Just a dude with a shovel, looking for the past.
I could buy into a long spear being one in dnd context but short spears, pilla, and staves, not so much. Pole arms used to be strictly two handed weapons that had reach and could be used from the second rank. Now i guess people are suggesting cugels too? Not in my worlds.
niklinna
satisfied?
I think the argument is more that without an arm on the pole (or staff), the pole is just a pole (or staff). Hence quarterstaff is ruled out. Of the category "polearm". Except the feat explicitly includes it in spite of the feat's name.
The idea is that you can use a spear in the same way you would a quarterstaff, so if you can use PAM with a spear, then a staff seems perfectly fine. The issue is really the fact that a staff is versatile in 5e, and is allowed to be wielded in one hand for less damage.
How logical that is in real life is only a concern for the DM- as written, it's perfectly legal and not hardly an exploit (if the writer of the Feat somehow forgot that the staff was versatile, or that one handed spears are a thing, and intended to specify two handed use only, surely that would have been given some errata in the past 8 years?).
How logical that is in real life is only a concern for the DM- as written, it's perfectly legal and not hardly an exploit (if the writer of the Feat somehow forgot that the staff was versatile, or that one handed spears are a thing, and intended to specify two handed use only, surely that would have been given some errata in the past 8 years?).
