D&D 5E What is the "best" character for ONLY levels 1-4

[Blue]

Of note, attacking with both ends of a one-handed weapon is controversial. From what I understand, the DMs running the Adventurer's League games will be given significant leeway in interpreting such rules, so you might show up to a game and have your gimmick denied. (It just means you wouldn't be able to use a shield while you do this.)

I would completely call an AL DM on trying to introduce house rules in that case and get the organizer involved. Not that I'd create that character in the first place, but the write up in the PHB is makes no mention of number of hands.

There's been nothing hinting two hands are needed in the Errata or the Sage Advice compilation. And there is errata on the feat, confirming that a character gets it's ability score to the opposite-end damage, so it's not like they haven't had a chance.

That's a house rule that directly contradicts the book, and while it's welcome in any home game I believe AL is supposed to be directly by the book (plus the AL-specific rules).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's a house rule that directly contradicts the book, and while it's welcome in any home game I believe AL is supposed to be directly by the book (plus the AL-specific rules).

My reading of the feat is that it shouldn't work that way. That's the only in-game reality which could possibly justify the mechanics associated with the feat. That's my interpretation, as the DM. Interpretations aren't house rules, by definition, and the DM needs to be free to interpret in order to actually run this game.

If you were to take issue with that interpretation, and report me to the authorities, then I would probably stop DMing for the League and cite rules lawyers such as yourself as the reason why I quit. Hypothetically speaking, I mean.

 

[Mistwell]

Of note, attacking with both ends of a one-handed weapon is controversial. From what I understand, the DMs running the Adventurer's League games will be given significant leeway in interpreting such rules, so you might show up to a game and have your gimmick denied. (It just means you wouldn't be able to use a shield while you do this.)

What's the controversy?

The text of the feat and weapon is explicit.

Feat: "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."

Weapon: Quarterstaff 1d6, Versatile (1d8). "Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property—the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack."

There is no requirement that the weapon be wielded in two hands in the feat. The weapon explicitly can be used in one hand. I am not aware of any ruling stating a conflict or ruling otherwise.

Jeremy Crawford even verified this on Twitter when asked, stating, "The Polearm Master feat doesn't require the quarterstaff to be wielded with two hands."

If a DM were to disallow the quarterstaff one-handed with the feat, that would be a violation of the AL rules. No house rules allowed. It's not an "interpretation" as there is literally nothing in the rules to support that reading of it. It's not like there is vague language involved here, it's all explicit. And if you're having trouble imagining how a quarterstaff could be used with both ends, watch literally ANY movie where someone uses a quarterstaff as a weapon!

 

[CTurbo]

My vhuman Tempest Cleric has been an absolute nightmare for my DM from the very first encounter. I took Heavy Armor Mastery feat at level 1 so he's extra tanky. He's a total encounter stopper with his Tempest abilities. This is easily the most OP character I have ever had using point buy. I started 16 Str, 16, Wis, and 14 Con. I normally roll for stats. Wrath of the Storm is very good at low levels often killing an enemy by itself. Destructive Wrath really will shut down encounters at low levels every time it's used if the DM is not careful. This is my pick.

War Cleric is very good at low levels too.

Barbarians are very strong at low levels. You'll likely have considerably more hp than the other characters plus resistance to most damage. Bear or Wolf Totem are both strong.

The Fighter is boring but strong at low levels.

I agree with the above about the Fiend Warlock. A vhuman Fiend Warlock with the Moderately Armored feat at level 1 would be REALLY hard to put down.

Devotion or Vengeance Pallys are really strong too.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Feat: "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."

Weapon: Quarterstaff 1d6, Versatile (1d8). "Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property—the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack."

You have a feat ability which requires using one of three weapons, which are very similar in how they're used. That's why the feat ability applies to these three weapons, and not (for example) pikes. A pike isn't wielded in the same way as these other three weapons are, so you can't use that same trick which works with these other three weapons.

Wielding a quarterstaff in one hand would necessarily require not wielding it in the same way as a halberd or glaive, so there's no way you could possibly pull off the advanced technique which is unique to those three weapons. It's physically impossible.

 

[Stalker0]

Moon Druid. Crazy powerful at low levels

 

[Blue]

My reading of the feat is that it shouldn't work that way. That's the only in-game reality which could possibly justify the mechanics associated with the feat. That's my interpretation, as the DM. Interpretations aren't house rules, by definition, and the DM needs to be free to interpret in order to actually run this game.

If you were to take issue with that interpretation, and report me to the authorities, then I would probably stop DMing for the League and cite rules lawyers such as yourself as the reason why I quit. Hypothetically speaking, I mean.

Here's an interesting article about it's a common set of rules and the administrators, not the DMs, who make rules calls and that it's a common set of rules for everyone.

Organized Play Means Playing Common Adventures by a Common Set of Rules

Just as the name implies, the D&D Adventurers League is a league game, in which everyone plays by the same rules, whether they always play in the same place or play all over the world. Characters within the League are portable, so a player who visits another area or moves there or who plays in an online game expects to be able to play his or her character there without having to make any modifications and without having to learn any local rules.

http://dndadventurersleague.org/the-role-of-rules-in-the-dd-adventurers-league/

Here's another one.

DMs Must Follow the Rules as Set Forth in the Player’s Handbook and the Player’s Guide and to Generally Run Adventures as Written

DMs are expected to follow all of the rules in the Player’s Handbook and Player’s Guide when running games. Since the Player’s Guide permits characters to use all of the material in the D&D basic rules and Player’s Handbook, except for rolling ability scores and hit points and imposing certain alignment restrictions, and restricts characters to those rules, DMs cannot impose any additional restrictions or permit characters to use any additional rules.

http://dndadventurersleague.org/dming-and-dm-empowerment/

But it doesn't stop there, you can find it all over their articles about running AL.

Above all, D&D Adventurers League DMs have to adopt a collaborative mindset. Organized play is not the same as home play, where a DM’s word can be gospel. DMs must adjust style and pacing to players’ preferences. They should uphold “Rules as Written” and campaign guidelines

http://dndadventurersleague.org/being-the-dungeon-master-in-a-shared-universe/

There is a mandate in Adventurer's League to run with the common rules. Making your own rulings that invalidate someone's AL-legal character build is not just frowned on, it's against what an DM within the Adventurers League has agreed to do. Regardless if you call it a house rule or a interpretation, or if you try to call someone else a rules lawyer for pointing it out.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is a mandate in Adventurer's League to run with the common rules. Making your own rulings that invalidate someone's AL-legal character build is not just frowned on, it's against what an DM within the Adventurers League has agreed to do. Regardless if you call it a house rule or a interpretation, or if you try to call someone else a rules lawyer for pointing it out.

The difference between a house rule and an interpretation is that house rules actually change something, where an interpretation keeps the rule in place. DMs are empowered to make interpretations where necessary, and are only bound to the rules where no possible gray area exists (according to your second link). Requiring that someone hold a staff in two hands in order to use it as though it were a glaive or halberd falls squarely in the realm of interpretation, because there is some gray area. If it's not 100 percent unambiguous to me, then it's not 100 percent unambiguous period, and so there's room for interpretation.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I'd recommend a Human Necromancer for a lvl 1-4 game.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Moon Druid, in fact those levels are where it's the most powerful.