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

FitzTheRuke

Legend
This is 100% cheese. Seriously people. Just no.
I'd never noticed it before now, but I'm okay with it. I mean, I'm not fond of the "spin it around" fluff (which would be both slower and weaker than just stabbing again with your spear). But it makes for a good spear-and-shield fighter, which was a very common historical reality for a reason: It's an excellent fighting style. The game doesn't make it very good without this feat, and this feat in no way makes it broken.

So what's the problem? The fluff? (I agree with you on that). So change the fluff. Hit 'em with your shield.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
And yet very plausible. :unsure:

I really have no clue why the concept bothers people so much. The damage is only 1d4 after all....
The concept of using a spear or staff one-handed with a shield doesn’t bother me at all; it’s not only possible, but a classic fighting style. It does bother me that the bonus action attack is specifically described as being made with the butt end of the weapon; while there are definitely cases for using the butt end of a polearm, most of them involve both hands on the weapon, and in any case two quick thrusts would be faster anyway. Fortunately, it’s easy enough to ignore that little bit of fluff and narrate it in a more plausible way. Regardless, it’s very clear that the bonus action attack is intended to be usable while wielding a spear or staff one-handed, and it’s not at all unbalanced.
 
Last edited:



Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Im going to assume you are trolling because no one could assume that this is anything other than a blatant rules exploit.
It’s perfectly balanced (as all things should be) compared to PAM using a two-handed polearm. The mental image is a little odd, but mechanically speaking it’s perfectly fair and reasonable.
 





Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I'd never noticed it before now, but I'm okay with it. I mean, I'm not fond of the "spin it around" fluff (which would be both slower and weaker than just stabbing again with your spear). But it makes for a good spear-and-shield fighter, which was a very common historical reality for a reason: It's an excellent fighting style. The game doesn't make it very good without this feat, and this feat in no way makes it broken.

So what's the problem? The fluff? (I agree with you on that). So change the fluff. Hit 'em with your shield.
Mechanically, I am 100% ok with a spear fighter getting one "quick extra jab" doing a bit less damage. Twirling the spear around one handed? uuuugh.

I think making a "butt attack" was probably a mistake in the first place - while the "bo" style of staff fighting with both ends is legit and does exist, in the west both quarterstaves and polearms a grip designed to maximized reach. Another "bonus" for being a polearm master probably would have been better...
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
The concept of using a spear or staff one-handed with a shield doesn’t bother me at all; it’s not only possible, but a classic fighting style. It does bother me that the bonus action attack is specifically described as being made with the butt end of the weapon; while there are definitely cases for using the butt end of a polearm, most of them involve both hands on the weapon, and in any case two quick thrusts would be faster anyway. Fortunately, it easy enough to ignore that little bit of fluff and narrate it in a more plausible way. Regardless, it’s very clear that the bonus action attack is intended to be usable while wielding a spear or staff one-handed, and it’s not at all unbalanced.
Holding the spear (or staff...) with one-hand and doing a reverse spin to swing the butt-end around is easy enough. It isn't as effective (hence the low damage), but can catch an opponent off guard.

I had a PC who was a spear/shield ranger with Dueling and STR 18 and PAM, so the butt-end damage was d4+6. :D
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
FWIW I thought that your OP was clear. It was just easier to reply to the simple posts before dealing with that more complex point.
thank you - it was pretty heavily implied, but I felt making it explicit would be better.

I think the other point I was making is that a dex built sword and shield better is a lot more fun, unless your fun is doing massive damage, but that's more of a personal preference and less "discussable"
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Holding the spear (or staff...) with one-hand and doing a reverse spin to swing the butt-end around is easy enough. It isn't as effective (hence the low damage), but can catch an opponent off guard.

I had a PC who was a spear/shield ranger with Dueling and STR 18 and PAM, so the butt-end damage was d4+6. :D

We had a bugbear barbarian (got disintegrated by a Trump beholder... RIP Goruk!) with a halberd and GWM. The butt-end damage was... 1d4+17?
 






Zubatcarteira

Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
For Sword and Shield specifically, I think the Shield doesn't give enough of a benefit to make up for the huge difference in damage if feats are involved, at least for a Fighter. Without feats, it should be better, yeah.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top