D&D 5E is a Fighter/cleric etc less powerful using a shield

[Ahrimon]

My Dwarven War Cleric wouldn't think about going without his shield. Between his warhammer, spiritual weapon, and spirit guardians he could do plenty of damage and between the plate armor, shield, and dwarven bonus hit points he was the parties tank. I took an ASI at level four and eight to push my strength and my wisdom, for the bonus War Cleric attacks.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A shield will keep you alive, which is usually a strong position to take.

On the other hand, the legacy of 4E is that Hit Points are a resource that you're expected to spend, and you gain nothing by ending the day with more than you need. If you can end the combat slightly faster by swinging a heavy weapon at the cost of taking a few arrows to the chest, then that's an insignificant trade-off as long as you never actually get knocked out.

Unless you're fighting things way out of your league, a heavy weapon is probably somewhat preferable, but either approach should be sufficient for whatever task you face.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A shield will keep you alive, which is usually a strong position to take.

On the other hand, the legacy of 4E is that Hit Points are a resource that you're expected to spend, and you gain nothing by ending the day with more than you need. If you can end the combat slightly faster by swinging a heavy weapon at the cost of taking a few arrows to the chest, then that's an insignificant trade-off as long as you never actually get knocked out.

Unless you're fighting things way out of your league, a heavy weapon is probably somewhat preferable, but either approach should be sufficient for whatever task you face.

That may be how it is in 4e (haven't played it, don't know), but that's a flawed assumption from the get go. It's only true if you recover all resources after every battle. And that's simply not true in most gaming scenarios. If you're given the choice of ending an encounter in 4 rounds with 55 HP left, or in 3 rounds with 50 HP left, the first is by far the better choice because you might need those HP later on.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That may be how it is in 4e (haven't played it, don't know), but that's a flawed assumption from the get go. It's only true if you recover all resources after every battle. And that's simply not true in most gaming scenarios. If you're given the choice of ending an encounter in 4 rounds with 55 HP left, or in 3 rounds with 50 HP left, the first is by far the better choice because you might need those HP later on.

If, at the end of the day, you are left with either 25 HP or 20 HP, then your earlier choice was irrelevant because you heal up to full either way.

Once you have a sufficient margin of HP, you're unlikely to run through them all in a day regardless, unless your AC is just terrible. When you're talking about the difference between AC 18 and AC 20, you're going to be fine either way. The exception being if you fight things that are way out of your league, or if you continue on well in excess of your expected daily budget (which is a fine way to play, but it's sad that you need to go to such extremes before basic considerations like using a shield become really meaningful).

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Either way it's about resource management, and the question is if you can conserve more HP by not getting hit than by killing enemies quickly before they have time to make as many attacks.

You can never be sure how many encounters you'll face before the next long rest, so smart players will want to minimize HP loss even in insignificant fights they are certain to win.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Unless I'm planning on taking the Great Weapon Master feat or Polearm Master feat I will go Shield whenever possible. I think the average damage between a Longsword and a Greatsword is not that much unless I'm getting the +10 from GWM on the Greatsword. Likewise the difference between a Battleaxe and a Halberd is not that much unless i'm getting bonus action and reaction attacks with the Halberd.

 

[Valetudo]

Sword and board is a viable option in 5th, unlike 3rd where going 2hander was by far way more effective. But you still cant tank like a 4th defender.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Any tips to make a sword and board warrior more effective/exciting. Tips on how to make the shield more than what it is.

Have a good DM.

No, I'm serious. If you have a DM that only goes "by the rules" (as in, if it's not spelled out in the rules, then you can't do it or if you do it is pointless), then don't bother.

If, however, you have a good DM, one who actually means it when he/she says "What do you want to do", then the sky's the limit. I've had players use their 'large' shields as makeshift door-barriers, as a toboggan/skateboard to quickly get down stairs, as a litter to carry a fallen companion, as a light-barrier for the lantern or campfire, and, yes, in combat situations too. Using it to "shield-bash" an opponent, or as an improvised weapon when their weapon was destroyed, or to scoop up burning coals to throw onto a carrion crawler, or to provide cover to the gnome wizard trying to cast a spell and not get hit with arrows from the bad guys.

The key thing is DM and Player imagination and willingness to use the rules and not let the rules use THEM. But, as I said, if your DM is of the "you don't have that skill/feat/class/ability/race/whatever, so you can not even attempt it" side of the fence...then you are better off just doing what he/she and everyone at the table as already used or been doing. (which, IMHO, is a sad state of affairs for a game that is based on fantasy and imagination...).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[ccs]

I like shields. Shields have prevented ALOT of damage over my 35 years of play (even at higher lv 3x/PF play).... Far more points negated than if I'd been doing 3-6 or whatever extra pts of damage per swing & killing things faster.
And has been mentioned in a reply above, shields expand your options beyond just AC....

That said, I don't always use them. It just depends upon the character I'm envisioning.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Either way it's about resource management, and the question is if you can conserve more HP by not getting hit than by killing enemies quickly before they have time to make as many attacks.

Of course, you also risk using your resources ineffectively, if you make yourself too hard to hit. Why would the orcs obligingly attack the AC 21 fighter/cleric, when the AC 13 warlock is standing right over there?

Minimizing total HP loss was important, when group HP could only be replenished by the cleric (or, in some games, a wand). When everyone regenerates all of their HP overnight, you need to make sure that everyone is taking some hits, or else you risk one character being overwhelmed.