D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5]TWF vs. shield fighter

[Darklone]

Soo... except for the puny Two Weapon Defense feat (admittedly an improvement), is there anything else that changes the game for the shield fighters?

Till now, the dude with two shields was the best TWF fighter, is there any reason (that eluded me) to believe this has been fixed?

 

[Tessarael]

Shields give a shield bonus, the shield bonus does not stack. So now it's the dude with one shield and a weapon.

I've been trying to figure out how I would build a two-weapon Fighter/Rogue with 7 feats, and I'm always happier with a weapon-and-shield fighter. Here's where five feats go:

Weapon Finesse (mandatory for DEX guy)
Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialization
Improved Critical
Improved Initiative

Two feats left. Two-weapon fighter takes:

Two-Weapon Fighting
Two-Weapon Defense

Weapon and Shield fighter could take:

Two-Weapon Fighting
Improved Shield Bash

or, my preference:

Dodge (+1 AC vs. one opponent)
Power Attack (extra damage when you can afford to reduce your chance to hit)

I'm really not that impressed with the feat chains to Whirlwind Attack or Great Cleave.

I looked at taking Duelist, but Duelists are terrible compared to weapon and shield guy. (Duelists only get the AC bonus when unarmored and without a shield. Blech.)

To give the two-weapon fighter up to the same defense as weapon & shield fighter, you need a weapon with Defending, and it's not worthwhile. e.g. Compare Heavy Shield +2 of Bashing (+4 AC _and_ +1 weapon causing d8 damage with Improved Shield Bash) vs. a Defending +3 Weapon (+4 AC with two-weapon defense _or_ +3 weapon and +1 AC with two-weapon defense). They cost respectively 9,000gp and 32,000gp.

So the weapon and shield fighter is 23,000gp better off. Hmm, let's buy a +4 Belt of Giant Strength. The weapon and shield fighter is much better off.

 

[reapersaurus]

Tessarael - You should go thru your comparisons again, and include Divine Shield and Shield Charge.

 

[Spyritwind]

It's been a very long time since I've crunched all the numbers, but as a whole the shield fighter is better than the two weapon fighter in most situations.

The trouble with TWF is that most of the time it makes you a worse fighter than if you had just fought with either a two handed weapon or a single weapon and a shield (and you didn't even have to waste feats on the the other options either), but under certain circumstances it comes useful or even nasty.

A few dice of sneak attack can make one extra attack really nasty. If you have two powerful magic weapons it might be worth it. If you are so uber that you can actualy use TWF and the power attack feat and still hit some thing the multiplicity of power attack applying to all of your attacks can be nice.

The reasons above seem to be the best reasons to TWF unless it's just style or role playing issue.

Most campaigns or characters don't last long so unless your campaing starts with high level characters, most people's DnD experience is with low to low/mid or mid levels characters which lends itself to the shield fighter being the best option over all, or most of the time.

To wield an extra weapon you lose +2 to hit at the very least and usualy at least +2 to AC (large shield) which is an over all spread of 4 that you are deficient vs your oponent for the extra attack. Now imagine the shield you have is a +1, or +2 shield? What if you are trying to be uber and wield two medium weapons at -4 to hit? It doesn't take long for you to be at -4 to hit and -4 to AC.

If you are strong enough to overcome these penalties vs your opponent for what is usualy one or maybe two extra attacks per round then you are strong enough to take them down any way, it just may take you longer with a single weapon.

Basically I'm not sure the shield user needs any buffing. At lower levels it's the best option and at higher levels TWF can actualy work. Playing NWN gives one a very acurate perspective on the issue. In PVP TWF's can have a hard time hitting their opponent some times. At uber levels having a +5 large, or tower shield adds a lot to AC while your opponent has at least a -2 to hit you already. That gives you an effective +9 AC, or more than your opponent. If they can still hit you then you would lose any way no matter what.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I think that y'all may have misunderstood Darklone's question -- he's saying that in 3.0, the best two-weapon fighter was a guy with two shields, who shield-bashed as his sole attack, and is wondering if that's changed in 3.5.

To answer that question, based on a quick browsing through the 3.5 SRD:

It's still a very viable tactic. The Power Attack changes have made double-weapons more attractive, and since only a small shield counts as a light weapon in your off-hand, the PA changes have made shields less attractive: a spiked light shield does 1d4 damage.

That seems to be the only effective change.

 

[Psiblade]

The AC bonuses from 2 shields do not stack in 3.5. You would be better off with a bastard sword & shield combo with the improved shield bash to help you out also.


-Psiblade

 

[Mike Sullivan]

The AC bonuses from 2 shields do not stack in 3.5.

They don't stack in 3.0, either, as I understand it. The reason that you use two shields as opposed to a sword and shield is the same reason you always use two weapons of the same type in TWF -- conservation of feats. That's especially important for a fighter TWF in 3.5, who will be wanting 5 weapon-specific feats for his favored weapon (weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialization, and improved critical). You can't afford to get all of those for both your (say) long sword and your shield.


EDIT: I should note that I'm not highly familiar with the 3.0 two-shield-fighter build, so I may be mistaken as to what the 3.0 rationale for it is.