D&D 5E How valuable is the shield?

[Caliban]

I don't see very many weapon-damage-dealers using it, mainly because every game seems to evolve towards GWM and/or Polearm mastery in order to do damage vs. the higher CR creatures, and shield use isn't allowed with those weaopns. (Well, you can one-hand wield a staff and Polearm Mastery, but I haven't seen it.)

On the other hand, everyone caster I've seen who is proficient with a shield has a shield. Sometimes no weapon if the DM enforces the somatic and material component rules, but every one has a shield.

I'm wondering about the corner cases, like would a melee rogue use a shield if they were proficient? Or the revised melee Ranger (Beastmaster), who is. Neither tends towards those feats with only a single attack.

I have a Paladin/Warlock who uses a shield. He's a bit of of an outlier though - he has both Polearm Master (wielding a quarterstaff in one hand) and Warcaster as well. At level 9, he currently has a 25 AC and wears a Cloak of Displacement. Four points of that AC is provided by a +2 Shield. (The rest is +1 platemail, +1 ring of protection, and +1 from Defense style.)

With up to 3 attacks a round, he does decent damage, and when needed he can do a big damage spike using his smites.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I have a Paladin/Warlock who uses a shield. He's a bit of of an outlier though - he has both Polearm Master (wielding a quarterstaff in one hand) and Warcaster as well. At level 9, he currently has a 25 AC and wears a Cloak of Displacement. Four points of that AC is provided by a +2 Shield. (The rest is +1 platemail, +1 ring of protection, and +1 from Defense style.)

With up to 3 attacks a round, he does decent damage, and when needed he can do a big damage spike using his smites.

That's pretty close to a perfect combo of items for a defensive character. Impressive, you lucky bastard

 

[Caliban]

That's pretty close to a perfect combo of items for a defensive character. Impressive, you lucky bastard

Well, it's an Adventure League character, so it's not as lucky as it seems. Once you get enough Renown with your faction, you can buy +1 weapons and armor from them (that's where the +1 plate came from). The Ring of Protection came from the Lost Mines of Phandelver, and the +2 Shield and Cloak of Displacement are from AL modules.

 

[KarinsDad]

Right, because disadvantage is such an unbelievably rare thing, achievable only by 9th level spells. ;-)

If your foes already have disadvantage, why would you want to be wasting an action putting on a shield? Isn't there something more productive that your Bard can be doing with his time?


Like I said, you can spin out any once in a blue moon scenario where a Bard strapping on a shield is a good action. It just happens to be the best action 1% of the time instead of 60% of the time.

 

[KarinsDad]

Here's another scenario in which a shield is handy. Your Lore Bard is functioning as a combination healer (Aura of Vitality) and summoner (Conjure Animals). You're fighting Frost Giants, and thanks to the Shadow Monk's Pass Without Trace you're going to ambush them. Your concentration is busy with Conjure Animals, and you (the Lore Bard) don't have any worthwhile offensive spells to throw during the fight: your job is just to make sure your wolves/elks/whatnot function as meat shields and do some damage to the giants in the process while the rest of the party kills them. You're already the softest target in the party--if you have a shield, you could reasonably equip it, and then spend your turns Dodging (or lying prone if there's enough distance) while shouting orders to your wolves, and awarding Bardic Inspiration to your fellow PCs plus using Cutting Words to foil Frost Giant attacks. Using the shield + Dodge / prone + Cutting Words maximizes your odds of keeping Conjure Animals up, which is more valuable than tossing a Vicious Mockery every round would be.

It's not the only way to approach the situation, but it's a valid approach and an option you wouldn't have if you didn't carry a shield.

Err, Frost Giants have 60 foot range with their rocks (the same range as Cutting Words) and do 28 average points of damage. DC 14 Con save for Concentration if hit (40 points, DC 20 on a critical). A single giant can also double move and get within melee range of a Cutting Words bard in a single round. Since fighting giants typically means a larger room, I would expect a DM to assign one or more giants to melee attack the bard at least in some encounters.

I don't know about your encounters, but the first casualty of nearly every encounter at our table is the plan.

A bard who has a shield strapped on cannot cast any spells. It takes an action to get the shield off, so at best he might do is cast a bonus action spell in the same round. Once he loses concentration in the scenario you describe (or the foes get lucky and just plain wipe his animals out), the main option he has is to dodge. Course, dodging won't help when a giant grapples him and starts beating on him, or grapples/trips him, pins him to the ground and starts beating on him with advantage the following round. If he still has his Cutting Words on a given round, he might be able to stop a grapple. He might not. And my DM might just have the giant start walking away, carrying the grappled Bard 15 feet into the air while beating on him.


A lot of this is dependent on the DM. Our DM has no qualms with ignoring PC tanks to focus fire on the squishy PCs, to have NPC allies hiding in the wings that the PCs do not know about, or to have traps and other impediments to our plans.

Interestingly, the scenario you just described is something similar to what happened at our table (we weren't fighting Frost Giants, but the previous 3 battles were with Frost Giants). Unfortunately for our Lore Bard, the DM attacked his PC with a single foe 3 rounds in a row: critical, critical, and advantage critical. Basically, the odds of that happening against a PC that tends to stay out of melee is about once out of every three gaming decades (1 in 4103, assuming the PC gets attacked against AC about 5 times a gaming session unlike melee PCs who might get attacked against AC 25 times a gaming session). But, stuff happens. Unexpected stuff happens all of the time. In two of our recent giant fights, they had one or two adult white dragons on their side. +2 AC and dodging does not help against Dragon breath or most Dragon spells.

The fact is that in your scenario, if crap hits the fan and the Bard has to start casting spells, it basically takes up to 2 rounds before he can get his first new spell out. 2 rounds is a lot of time when crap starts hitting the fan. It's a fine tactic if crap doesn't hit the fan and that's your basic assumption. That doesn't seem to happen a lot at our table.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If your foes already have disadvantage, why would you want to be wasting an action putting on a shield? Isn't there something more productive that your Bard can be doing with his time?

Maybe because you want to keep concentration on an important spell?

Like I said, you can spin out any once in a blue moon scenario where a Bard strapping on a shield is a good action. It just happens to be the best action 1% of the time instead of 60% of the time.

I never find it a burden to have too many viable options.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Err, Frost Giants have 60 foot range with their rocks (the same range as Cutting Words) and do 28 average points of damage. DC 14 Con save for Concentration if hit (40 points, DC 20 on a critical). A single giant can also double move and get within melee range of a Cutting Words bard in a single round. Since fighting giants typically means a larger room, I would expect a DM to assign one or more giants to melee attack the bard at least in some encounters.

I don't know about your encounters, but the first casualty of nearly every encounter at our table is the plan.

[shrug] So what? "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." Right now we're on the Internet, not at a table. By definition we're doing the "planning" part, which includes thoroughly understanding all your options, not the "in battle" part.

A bard who has a shield strapped on cannot cast any spells. It takes an action to get the shield off, so at best he might do is cast a bonus action spell in the same round. Once he loses concentration in the scenario you describe (or the foes get lucky and just plain wipe his animals out), the main option he has is to dodge. Course, dodging won't help when a giant grapples him and starts beating on him, or grapples/trips him, pins him to the ground and starts beating on him with advantage the following round. If he still has his Cutting Words on a given round, he might be able to stop a grapple. He might not. And my DM might just have the giant start walking away, carrying the grappled Bard 15 feet into the air while beating on him.

On the other hand, Athletics Expertise + Cutting Words will help quite a bit. And now your giant has spent two rounds Dashing and then grappling, while sucking up attacks and opportunity attacks from PCs and a swarm of conjured animals. Historically I haven't seen that kind of thing work out very well for the giant at all. Maybe if the giants outnumbered the PCs (Quadruple-Deadly fight or worse) and were the ones ambushing the PCs it would work out better. Realistically the wolf pack/etc. is only going to account for one or two giants over the first two or three rounds of combat--if there are six giants then yes, the bard would be foolish to wear a shield into battle because in that battle survival, not winning efficiently, is top priority.

But come on, how many times do you see four 11th level PCs tangling with six Frost Giants? (I mean, I love that kind of thing as a DM, but does your DM? And I run Combat As War anyway so even then I'm not going to force the players into a straight-up fight.) That's a more extreme edge case than the one you accused Sacrosanct of.

A lot of this is dependent on the DM. Our DM has no qualms with ignoring PC tanks to focus fire on the squishy PCs, to have NPC allies hiding in the wings that the PCs do not know about, or to have traps and other impediments to our plans.

Precisely why, in a more normal battle, it's useful for the squishy bard to have the option to whip out his shield and lie prone, if no total cover is available and if he's not within 40' of the enemy, thus removing himself as an attractive target. Maybe you were going to beat those goblins anyway, but it's sure nice to have the option to beat them without the bard losing 30 HP in the process.

Think of it as the inverse of (Dodge + bonus action Shield of Faith), except that it only works against ranged weapons and it doesn't cost any spell points/slots.

Interestingly, the scenario you just described is something similar to what happened at our table (we weren't fighting Frost Giants, but the previous 3 battles were with Frost Giants). Unfortunately for our Lore Bard, the DM attacked his PC with a single foe 3 rounds in a row: critical, critical, and advantage critical. Basically, the odds of that happening against a PC that tends to stay out of melee is about once out of every three gaming decades (1 in 4103, assuming the PC gets attacked against AC about 5 times a gaming session unlike melee PCs who might get attacked against AC 25 times a gaming session). But, stuff happens. Unexpected stuff happens all of the time. In two of our recent giant fights, they had one or two adult white dragons on their side. +2 AC and dodging does not help against Dragon breath or most Dragon spells.

Er, so what? News flash: bards are squishy! +2 to AC doesn't make you invulnerable! What a shocker.

The fact is that in your scenario, if... and the Bard has to start casting spells, it basically takes up to 2 rounds before he can get his first new spell out. 2 rounds is a lot of time... It's a fine tactic if... and that's your basic assumption. That doesn't seem to happen a lot at our table.

It's not a basic assumption of play, but you're correct that it's a basic prerequisite for when you'd want to don your shield--you have to be reasonably confident that you don't really need to do any spellcasting in the next six seconds, possibly because you're already concentrating on the spell you want most.

To sum up: being able to don a shield, even if you're nonproficient, is a useful capability under some circumstances, and carrying one costs you nothing but 6 lb. of encumbrance. Even if you're a sorcerer or a bardlock or something, you should consider doing so. The penalties for wearing armor nonproficiently are milder than you think.

 

[KarinsDad]

But come on, how many times do you see four 11th level PCs tangling with six Frost Giants? (I mean, I love that kind of thing as a DM, but does your DM? And I run Combat As War anyway so even then I'm not going to force the players into a straight-up fight.) That's a more extreme edge case than the one you accused Sacrosanct of.

Our last 3 fights with Frost Giants were:

Day one:

5 Frost Giants plus 1 Adult White Dragon vs. 7 9th level PCs


Day three:

8 Frost Giants plus 2 Adult White Dragons vs. 6 10th level PCs plus Harshnag (the Monk PC convinced the Dragons to stay out of the fight in return to helping them rescue their dragon eggs, so it ended up being 8 giants vs 6 PCs plus 1 giant, although the one Dragon did Dragon Fear on one of the PCs who was being cocky and it prevented him from moving close enough to the fight for a few rounds)

Same day later on:

5 Frost Giants plus Frost Giant Jarl and 5 Frost Giants on round 3 plus 2 Frost Giants plus 2 Winter Wolves on round 6 vs. 6 10th level PCs plus Harshnag plus 2 gimped white Adult Dragons (whose breath weapons were basically worthless). 15 overall vs 9, but the average at any time was closer to 8 vs 9


So yeah, we often have tough encounters where we need to have every PC be very proactive and very capable of doing something productive in every single round. We are also able to handle large encounters like this because we have two controlling PCs (Lore Bard and Wizard), two PCs that can conjure pets (Lore Bard and Druid, and to a lesser extent, Necromancer Wizard who sometimes has undead minions), and 4 PCs that can hold their own in melee for a while (Barbarian/Wizard, Monk, Cleric, shapechanging Druid). 5 out of 6 PCs can cast spells and that matters a lot too.

But if you are not in a tough encounter, then I could see a Bard using a Shield to protect his concentration. Overall though, he might as well just use Vicious Mockery (or some other more potent spell) and Cutting Words to protect himself and his allies and bring in a second Conjure Animals if the first one gets wasted. Hanging onto a concentration spell can sometimes be critical, but in a tough fight, contributing every single round and being able to cast spells every single round is usually more important than +2 AC to keep a concentration spell up.

I see that you view it as just one more tool in your Bard toolkit, but I just think that taking an entire round to just get to be able to cast spells again (for a Lore Bard where casting spells is his bread and butter in combat) seems extremely restrictive. It's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sure, but when someone uses numbers that do not make sense, it weakens their argument.

Anyone can skew numbers to prop up their argument. That doesn't make their argument stronger.



Even your extreme example here does not make sense because again, you skew the example to match the result you want to achieve. You view it as taking your POV to its logical conclusion. I view it as nonsensical because neither offensive or defensive side can be achieved in the game as played.


On the other hand, if you use examples that match the game itself, a clearer picture can be seen. That picture is not always correct every time. As you yourself said, it is situationally dependent. But it is more clear than using numbers or situations that never happen in the game.


Let's look at level one. All 3 fighters have CON 14 or 12 hit points.

Fighter A has 16 Str, chain mail, fights Longsword and Shield, and has the Defense Fighting Style.
Fighter B has 16 Str, chain mail, fights Longsword and Shield, and has the Dueling Fighting Style.
Fighter C has 16 Str, chain mail, fights Maul, and has the Great Weapon Fighting, Fighting Style.

Fighter A is total defense and Fighter C is total offense. Fighter B is somewhere in between.


All three fighters are fighting Goblins, one at a time (i.e. the goblins are spread out throwing spears at other PCs, the fighter attacks a goblin and when finished, runs up to melee attack a different goblin). Instead of an example where the fighter always goes first, we'll base it solely on DPR per round to see how many goblins are taken out in that timeframe.

Fighter A has AC 19 and DPR 4.35 versus the AC 15, 7 hit point Goblins. The Goblins have DPR 1.825 versus the Fighter.
Fighter B has AC 18 and DPR 5.55 versus the AC 15, 7 hit point Goblins. The Goblins have DPR 2.1 versus the Fighter.
Fighter C has AC 16 and DPR 6.65 versus the AC 15, 7 hit point Goblins. The Goblins have DPR 2.65 versus the Fighter.

It takes the Goblins 6.575 rounds to knock out Fighter A during which he will take out 4.086 Goblins.
It takes the Goblins 5.714 rounds to knock out Fighter B during which he will take out 4.531 Goblins.
It takes the Goblins 4.528 rounds to knock out Fighter C during which he will take out 4.302 Goblins.

Using this simplistic example, Fighter B does the best (which is expected since he boosted both AC and damage by the largest percentage, whereas the other two boosted either offense or defense by a diminishing returns percentage), but only marginally more than Fighter C. However, the most offensive Fighter still does better than the most defensive Fighter.


The other aspect of this is that NPCs do not always attack the high AC PC. Some of them are smart enough to wipe out the non-tank PCs first. The extra AC is often only helping against a single foe and while the defensive Fighter is messing around with his foe for many rounds, the rest of the foes are using those extra rounds to attack his allies. The offensive Fighter takes his foe out quicker and then goes to help his allies (regardless of the fact that he might have gotten hit more often, as long as he has 1 hit point, he can fight).


Taking this to a more logical conclusion in game, as fights get tougher and PCs get higher level, PCs that take GWF will also take GWM and then the damage is SO much greater that Fighter B falls behind. We have all seen this in game and every analysis I have seen has backed this up. Also, the AC of the PCs will climb much slower than the to hit of normal monsters attacking, so the overall percentage of AC protection decreases the higher level the PCs become. The real defense becomes hit points, not AC.


I agree with you that offense is not always better than defense. There are many situations where that is not the case. But, one has to play the odds here. There are many more situations where offense trumps defense.


Death is the ultimate form of control (usually). The longer a fight is prolonged, the more opportunities the NPCs have to get lucky. Defensive fighters prolong fights more than offensive fighters do.


Btw, having said this, I often play melee PCs that have high AC at the expense of damage. I enjoy that style of play as a player. However, I have repeatedly seen that they do fine at lower levels, but they rarely shine at higher levels. They individually survive better, but the party tends to overall take a greater hit on resources. It's just how the game works.

This is probably the best example of someone missing the forest through the trees that I've ever seen. Especially since it's the second time in a row you did even after I already said that the numbers don't matter. Your'e getting caught up in trying to find this big mathematical analysis when you don't need to, and in doing so are completely missing the point.

Once again, those number were just general non-specific things used only to show that offense isn't always the best. They didn't need to be tied to any specific example, because they were only used to show how all you need to do is have basic math where any time you have more resources (HP) left after a fight, that is the best way, and sometimes it's offense, and sometimes it's defense. You keep trying to tie it to these examples that aren't relevant because they don't disprove the basic theory that was my entire point: more HP after combat ends, regardless of length of combat, is better.

That's it. A basic simple concept that doesn't require over analyzing it.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is probably the best example of someone missing the forest through the trees that I've ever seen. Especially since it's the second time in a row you did even after I already said that the numbers don't matter. Your'e getting caught up in trying to find this big mathematical analysis when you don't need to, and in doing so are completely missing the point.

Best example? Come on. You say that every fourth time you and I have a discussion.

Once again, those number were just general non-specific things used only to show that offense isn't always the best. They didn't need to be tied to any specific example, because they were only used to show how all you need to do is have basic math where any time you have more resources (HP) left after a fight, that is the best way, and sometimes it's offense, and sometimes it's defense. You keep trying to tie it to these examples that aren't relevant because they don't disprove the basic theory that was my entire point: more HP after combat ends, regardless of length of combat, is better.

That's it. A basic simple concept that doesn't require over analyzing it.

If you say so. Personally, I think that making a claim with not so plausible numbers tends to be less persuasive.

You and I do agree however. Offense is sometimes best. Defense is sometimes best.

I just also think that offense in 5E tends to trump defense the majority of the time, just like in real life (that's why militaries try to hit foes hard and fast so that they cannot retaliate). Bane is good. Bless is typically better (no save required for one thing, and PCs having a lesser chance of being taken out of action economy is another; e.g. a Slow spell vs. PCs can be devastating let alone multi-target Hold spells). IMO. But, there are also circumstances where Bane is obviously better (like when PCs want to drop a bunch of save or suck spells on foes, or when foes do mega-damage).