If this topic has been asked I apologize, but could Paladins be made to allow the use of a Polearm AND a Shield as an exception to the rule? I think it would be a nice nitch for shield dedicated paladins, but perhaps it would be overpowered?

Perhaps they could suffer a penalty somewhere else, but I just can't help picture jousting and the like... seems very... paladin-esque.

Thoughts?

Realism wise, you shouldn't be able to use a polearm and shield at the same time. A polearm and a jousting lance aren't really the same. Lances are basically held in a fixed position and the knight just rides in a straight line.

If you want to let them wield polearms as if they were lances, I'd say take away parry, second attack and third attack (while wielding polearm + shield).

A giant could probably use a 6 foot long polearm one handed as if it were no more than a light javelin to a human - which were frequently used in combination with a shield

Our standard position has been that while a giant or other large character can, for example, grip a staff in one hand instead of two, at that point they're pretty much using it like a crappy mace instead of the way it's intended, so, no go.

Similar deal with spears/polearms.

Just pointing out that Isildur's realism argument against it is at least debatable.

Just wish there was some more nitch idea for weapon uses between paladins... as it is, regardless of dedication its basically mace or sword...

At the very least, it would be nice if you could use a polearm in one hand and have a shield with the side affect of no parrying. I mean... if anyone has played monsterhunter you can use that lance type weapon and be able to get a few hits at a time with it, so second and third attack should be just fine =P