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

[Mistwell]

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.

This...makes no sense to me. The Pike cannot be used that way because of the pommel, which interferes with turning it around. The halbred, glaive and quarterstaff don't have this issue, regardless of one handed or two handed. It has nothing to do with the number of hands being used. You can hold the quarterstaff in the middle, in one hand. That's not an unusual thing to do, it's intended that way. This gives the skilled user the ability to hit someone with one end and then flip it around and him someone with the other end, using one hand to do it. There is nothing in the way of your grip with a quarterstaff preventing you from doing this, unlike with other weapons which have a pommel.

Here, watch a simple demonstration of what you just called "physically impossible":

[video=youtube;U5QmrllB7cQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5QmrllB7cQ[/video]

More importantly, the rules say it works that way, and the designer of the rules (Jeremy Crawford) has responded to inquiries about the issue and repeated that yes it works that way. How are you justifying this as not a house rule? I mean, it's fine for your home games, but when you take on the task of publicly DMing a game open to the public under the AL rules which explicitly say you cannot use your own house rules, how are you justifying this as an "interpretation" when you know darn well the rules don't agree with you and the designer of the rules says he doesn't agree with you?

 

[Mistwell]

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.

That's really, truly not how that works. It's not an issue of if an individual DM can justify their actions by imagining any vague sort of gray area possible. "Everyone plays by the same rules" means a player can create the character and play with it at DM table A is City Y, and then come to DM B and play in City Z, and it's supposed to be exactly as legal at all tables. Your interpretation, which goes directly against the plain text of the PHB rules AND against the stated public intent of the creator of the rules, would disallow a legally created and played character at another AL table. That's not allowed. The rules would kick you out, not them. This isn't some hotly debated and contested rule - I have literally seen ZERO people ever make the claim you're making about this rule, that this is merely an interpretation of a gray area. The only people I am aware of who made this change did it explicitly as a house rule and stated they knew it was a house rule. This is very clearly a house rule. You really are not allowed, by AL rules, to do that.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The real reason why you can't attack with the butt end of a pike is that it should be least twice as long as the other weapons in the "Polearm Master" category, and Archimedes's principle tells us that trying to pivot something that long requires a lot of extra effort, too much to pull off a fast melee strike. Maybe the feat should give pike wielders an extra 5 feet of reach instead? That would make pikes worthwhile to use and give something to differentiate them from other polearms.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This...makes no sense to me. The Pike cannot be used that way because of the pommel, which interferes with turning it around. The halbred, glaive and quarterstaff don't have this issue, regardless of one handed or two handed. It has nothing to do with the number of hands being used.

If that were true, then it should be possible to perform this maneuver while wielding a glaive in one hand, which is also impossible by the rules. I don't see the guy in the video using this maneuver with two hands, or while holding a shield in the other hand; nor do I imagine that it would work very well, if he was carrying a shield. That being the case, I'm inclined to believe that what he is doing is not strongly representative of what the feat ability represents.

More importantly, the rules say it works that way, and the designer of the rules (Jeremy Crawford) has responded to inquiries about the issue and repeated that yes it works that way. How are you justifying this as not a house rule? I mean, it's fine for your home games, but when you take on the task of publicly DMing a game open to the public under the AL rules which explicitly say you cannot use your own house rules, how are you justifying this as an "interpretation" when you know darn well the rules don't agree with you and the designer of the rules says he doesn't agree with you?

Unless Jeremy Crawford has actually appended that opinion as official errata, all we have to go on is the text in the book, which remains open to interpretation. Designers are allowed to be idiots, and it doesn't hurt anyone unless it actually makes it into the game. My agreement to run a flawed game does not mean I'll automatically parrot back the same flawed arguments as though they were gospel. My agreement to run is contingent on the fact that the DM has the latitude to make a judgment call when the rules are vague or inconsistent, except where the point has been officially canonized to the contrary; and if such a thing was declared as official, then I might wish to reconsider running the game in an official capacity.

 

[Galendril]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I'm sure someone has already said this: firbolg druid with shillelagh

 

[Mistwell]

If that were true, then it should be possible to perform this maneuver while wielding a glaive in one hand, which is also impossible by the rules.

Only because there is an explicit rule which says it's a two handed weapon lacking the versatile property. Because of the weight.

I don't see the guy in the video using this maneuver with two hands

I can easily show you one with two hands but I showed one hand BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING IT ONE HANDED.

or while holding a shield in the other hand; nor do I imagine that it would work very well, if he was carrying a shield. That being the case, I'm inclined to believe that what he is doing is not strongly representative of what the feat ability represents.
Unless Jeremy Crawford has actually appended that opinion as official errata,

It doesn't need errata because IT IS THE RULES AS WRITTEN. It says the staff is included in the feat, and the staff says it can be used one handed, and you need another rule to have any issues beyond that, and we don't have any other rule. Of course the plain rule which nobody but you is confused about isn't errated with what he's already said!

all we have to go on is the text in the book, which remains open to interpretation

It does not remain open to interpretation. You're citing zero rules in your position. Your position is purely based on your own imagination about how things work and not any rule. That's not an interpretation. There is no gray area in the rule itself, you just don't like the rule.

Designers are allowed to be idiots, and it doesn't hurt anyone unless it actually makes it into the game. My agreement to run a flawed game does not mean I'll automatically parrot back the same flawed arguments as though they were gospel.

Actually it really does! They say so, directly. If you have an issue with this, run a home game. You really do have to use the rules as written, even if you think they are deeply flawed. It is in fact gospel for that particular game. Nobody is forcing you to run AL. It does in fact come with that restriction however.

My agreement to run is contingent on the fact that the DM has the latitude to make a judgment call when the rules are vague or inconsistent, except where the point has been officially canonized to the contrary; and if such a thing was declared as official, then I might wish to reconsider running the game in an official capacity.

You probably should reconsider then, because you do not have the latitude you think you do for AL games. It's not a vague or inconsistent rule, it's just a rule you don't like because you don't imagine something working well that way. The rule itself is perfectly clear though.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I can easily show you one with two hands but I showed one hand BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING IT ONE HANDED.

For the sake of demonstration, you should show it being done one-handed while carrying a shield in the other hand (the actual in-game circumstances which are relevant here) and show the exact same maneuver being done with a glaive or halberd in two hands. Or better yet, don't bother, because it's impossible to perform the same maneuver in one hand as in two hands; it's a different maneuver when you perform it in different ways.

It does not remain open to interpretation. You're citing zero rules in your position. Your position is purely based on your own imagination about how things work and not any rule. That's not an interpretation. There is no gray area in the rule itself, you just don't like the rule.

Actually, I'm citing the AL post that was linked, where it says that the DM is free to interpret whenever the rules are not otherwise clear. This is a situation where the rules are not clear, which should be obvious to everyone, because we're having a disagreement about it.

You say with confidence that you think the rules are clear, and that there could be no other reasonable interpretation; but I recall a time when the letter of the rule permitted dead characters to act in full capacity, where unconsciousness was only in effect for dying creatures, so your appeal to RAW is not persuasive.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, I'm citing the AL post that was linked, where it says that the DM is free to interpret whenever the rules are not otherwise clear. This is a situation where the rules are not clear, which should be obvious to everyone, because we're having a disagreement about it.

Ha are you seriously claiming if anyone disagrees about a rule that's all it takes to make it "unclear" and therefore DM discretion? Come on, AL has no meaning if that's how it worked - that's what they mean by "adopting a collaborative mindset" where it can't just be a few people who disagree with a rule. You know that's not how it works, why are we even having this silly argument? You have to cite a rule IN THE PHB that isn't clear. It's clear though - you gave your reasons for why you think it works different, and none of your reasons come from a PHB rule or show a rule in the PHB that's unclear. Your entire argument is purely you don't imagine it should be able to work - that's not a rule. All the things that form the basis of your "interpretation" must be in the text of the rule, not just your imagination. Because it has to be something all other DMs and players have access to at all other tables in AL, and none of them have access to your imagination.

You say with confidence that you think the rules are clear, and that there could be no other reasonable interpretation; but I recall a time when the letter of the rule permitted dead characters to act in full capacity, where unconsciousness was only in effect for dying creatures, so your appeal to RAW is not persuasive.

It's persuasive because, "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". If that's really the rules as written you're supposed to uphold it. It's up to WOTC to errata it if it becomes a problem, not you. They've made it abundantly clear where the duty and responsibility for making those calls lays, and it's not with the DM for AL it's with WOTC. And WOTC did adjust the rules to account for that issue. Your job as an AL DM is to follow the rules as written, no matter how bad you think those rules are. It's a duty you take on as an AL DM.

You seem to have an issue with that. That's OK, DM'ing for AL isn't for everyone. In fact, it doesn't suit me either, so I totally understand. But, that being the case, why are you doing it when it clearly doesn't mesh well with your DM'ing philosophy? You just...don't get to make these sorts of calls for AL like you do at your home table. WOTC considers it unfair to other players who play at other tables where the rules as written are followed to the letter, and all things which are legal under the rules are allowed. We don't have to like that, but we do have to follow their rules.

 

[Volund]

Trying to get back on track here for the OP. Anything that let's you get an extra attack, or add extra dice to an attack, at level 1-4 is going to feel pretty powerful, especially if you also have a decent AC as well.

- The aforementioned PAM, including the completely AL-legal one-handed quarterstaff wielder. Potentially adding your Str mod twice every round makes PAM hard to top in T1 combat.
- Barbarian 2/Rogue 2 using Reckless Attack to activate Sneak Attack at will and then using Cunning Action to Disengage and reduce the chance of being attacked with advantage. You'll routinely hit for d8 + d6 + 3 and almost double the number of crit rolls. With a shield your AC is at least 16, maybe 17.
- Fighter 2/Warlock 2 with Defensive FS can have a 19 AC and be throwing Agonizing Blast/Hex for d10 + d6 + 3. Added bonus is that you are effective at interacting with NPC's outside of combat.
- Tempest Cleric 3. Assuming a 16 Wis, you have 10 spells to work with, Wrath of the Storm reactive damage, Destructive Wrath to cast a 24 hp Shatter spell, and a Spiritual Weapon bonus action attack that doesn't require concentration. Enjoy being a god in T1.
- Draconic bloodline Sorcerer can have decent hp and 16 AC (no Mage Armor required) - passable for T1. Using sorcery points to Quicken spells can be a lot of fun. Quicken Magic Missile and then finish them off with a real missile from your crossbow, because d8 +3 damage from a real bolt is better than a d10 firebolt. Quicken Web at a group of enemies and then cast firebolt to do d10 this turn to one enemy and an automatic 2d4 at the start of their next turn as the webs burn.