D&D 5E Have we misunderstood the shield and sword fighter (or warrior)?

[Ancalagon]

(I'm going to be using the term fighter, but also applies to a paladin and some other "warrior" concepts).

There has been a lot of discussion how in 5e the shield and weapon using fighter is a bit... underwhelming... when compared to other options. This is mainly due to limited feat support: I'm doing 1d8+7 with my sword and dueling fighting style fighter, while the PAM/GWM is doing massive damage.

What if this was... on purpose? Or if it's not on purpose, what if this was a "happy accident?"

If we look at a featless game, sword and board is actually somewhat better - if you take dueling fighting style, your damage output is basically the same as a 2 handed weapon and you have a shield!

So in a game with feats, because you really can't take things to improve your fighting style (there is shield master but it's... decent, not great?), you can take... whatever feat you want! Or just increase your stats if you don't like feats. You don't feel the "pressure" to take those "important" combat feats because they are simply not meaningful to you.

I once made a dex-built melee fighter with shield and sword, and for feats by the end of the campaign I had ritual caster, chef, lucky ... was my PC as hard hitting as he could have been? No, but he was very versatile - a better rounded adventurer vs a mere DPS machine. I'm sure there are many other example of fun and useful combos a PC could have when they aren't "forced" to take PAM/GWM or SS/CE....

EDIT: to be clear: Sword and Shield is a bit better to compensate for the lack of feats

 

[Zubatcarteira]

PAM doesn't actually specify you need to use the weapon with two hands to do the bonus action attack, so it works just fine with shield + spear/quarterstaff. It's good enough damage, especially with a Paladin for the extra smites, although just using a sword instead wouldn't work.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've seen more weapon+shield or two-weapons than great weapons in the games I run and play in.

Boosting AC is not easy in 5E (too a point, maybe, but not beyond really), so the shield makes up for lower damage a LOT IME.

Note: regarding Shield Master, we allow you can use the bonus action even if you don't take the Attack action.

 

[James Gasik]

Personally, I don't like the idea that shields are portable walls that you hide behind to get a bigger AC. I'd like blocking, shield bashing, and other techniques granted to shield users (without Feats, thanks!), so they can use it actively for offense and defense purposes.

Though I know that ship has sailed, got lost at sea, was attacked by pirates, plundered, cast adrift, ran afoul of a Dragon Turtle and was sent to a final, watery grave.

 

[Oofta]

I allow shield master to use their bonus action any time during their turn as long as they attack on their turn. That makes them very competitive while also having to decide what the best tactic for the current combat is.

Even without that the sword and board warriors seem to do fairly well, just potentially a slightly different role.

 

[ECMO3]

(I'm going to be using the term fighter, but also applies to a paladin and some other "warrior" concepts).

There has been a lot of discussion how in 5e the shield and weapon using fighter is a bit... underwhelming... when compared to other options. This is mainly due to limited feat support: I'm doing 1d8+7 with my sword and dueling fighting style fighter, while the PAM/GWM is doing massive damage.

What if this was... on purpose? Or if it's not on purpose, what if this was a "happy accident?"

If we look at a featless game, sword and board is actually somewhat better - if you take dueling fighting style, your damage output is basically the same as a 2 handed weapon and you have a shield!

So in a game with feats, because you really can't take things to improve your fighting style (there is shield master but it's... decent, not great?), you can take... whatever feat you want! Or just increase your stats if you don't like feats. You don't feel the "pressure" to take those "important" combat feats because they are simply not meaningful to you.

I once made a dex-built melee fighter with shield and sword, and for feats by the end of the campaign I had ritual caster, chef, lucky ... was my PC as hard hitting as he could have been? No, but he was very versatile - a better rounded adventurer vs a mere DPS machine. I'm sure there are many other example of fun and useful combos a PC could have when they aren't "forced" to take PAM/GWM or SS/CE....

Sword and Board with ASIs is going to be better than GWM-PAM in most (any?) WOTC published adventures that go to tier 3. GWM-PAM is great in a white room but magic weapons for this build are rare and you gave up 2 ASIs to get it. Sword and Board will not just equal it in most campaigns, it will flat beat it unless your DM is placing magic items specifically for your character.

Even without looking at the magic weapons, I find people overstate the difference

At 6th level vs AC 15 a GWM-PAM with a 16 strength is doing 18 DPR on his turn using his bonus action. A sword and board deulist with a 20 strength is doing 16 DPR while having better AC, better saves, higher athletics, a higher carrying capacity and not using his bonus. Start with a 17 strength, go with skill expert (athletics), ASI and then shield master and at level 8 you are way ahead of where a PAM-GWM build will be, getting a large number of your attacks with advantage.

That is without considering subclasses. Subclasses that add extra dice on a hit, like Rune Knight, Eldritch Knight or psi warrior are going to do better with dueling and classes that need to use bonus actions (EK, RK, Samaurai, Cavalier) are going to lose PAM attacks to use their bonus actions. Really when you get down to it, the only two subclasses that are really dominant with GWM-PAM are Echo Knight and Battlemaster (using precision).

To be honest on most builds I think GWM or PAM are better individually than together. If you take just PAM you have more weapons you can use with it, bringing staffs and spears (which are common) into play, while being able to use dueling. If you take just GWM it gives you a bonus action attack when you kill someone or crit without needing a second feat and you can use higher damage weapons and two more weapons. You also have some space for other bonus actions.

 

[Lojaan]

PAM doesn't actually specify you need to use the weapon with two hands to do the bonus action attack, so it works just fine with shield + spear/quarterstaff. It's good enough damage, especially with a Paladin for the extra smites, although just using a sword instead wouldn't work.

This is 100% cheese. Seriously people. Just no.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is 100% cheese. Seriously people. Just no.

And yet very plausible.

I really have no clue why the concept bothers people so much. The damage is only 1d4 after all....

 

[Zubatcarteira]

This is 100% cheese. Seriously people. Just no.

What about it is cheese to you?

 

[Lojaan]

And yet very plausible.

I really have no clue why the concept bothers people so much. The damage is only 1d4 after all....

Im going to assume you are trolling because no one could assume that this is anything other than a blatant rules exploit.