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

[Bill Zebub]

IMO, your error was much larger than that.

You’re right. I bothered to engage was my huge error.

Happy gaming.

 

[FrogReaver]

You’re right. I bothered to engage was my huge error.

Happy gaming.

I don't think that was it either. But anyways - Enjoy!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Using your chances to hit above (i'm ignoring criticals). Each attack should do 7+4+2+10 = 23 damage. You make 4 attacks. Thats potentially 92 damage before accuracy.

I get 69 DPR for AC 13 and 59 DPR for AC 15.

Here's my sheet. I don't think I forgot anything at this point, but if you see something let me know.

I also have 23 dmg per hit, but obviously you won't hit all the time. The Roll-DMG-eff. DMG shows the weighted dmg (including crits) for each roll that does hit. When you sum those, you get 11.85 for AC 13 and 9.55 for AC 15. Multiple by the four attacks and you get the 47.4 and 38.2, respectively.

I wasn’t. Chill out with the pedantry.

LOL relax! It isn't just you, a lot of people post DPR numbers assuming ALL hits--and I don't know why they do it since you don't hit all the time. I mean, I know it shows "potential" DPR, but I (personally) am more interested in actual or effective DPR.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's my sheet. I don't think I forgot anything at this point, but if you see something let me know.
View attachment 262926
I also have 23 dmg per hit, but obviously you won't hit all the time. The Roll-DMG-eff. DMG shows the weighted dmg (including crits) for each roll that does hit. When you sum those, you get 11.85 for AC 13 and 9.55 for AC 15. Multiple by the four attacks and you get the 47.4 and 38.2, respectively.

You aren't factoring in advantage from reckless attack. So your chance to hit vs 13 ac is 50% and vs 15 AC is 40% when it should be 75% and 64% that you cited earlier.

 

[TwoSix]

IMO. At lower levels GWM's biggest advantage was the bonus action attack.

Totally true. It also had some synergy with the -5/+10, as you're quite likely to drop CR 1/4-1/2 creatures in one attack when you average 20 damage a hit.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You aren't factoring in advantage from reckless attack. So your chance to hit vs 13 ac is 50% and vs 15 AC is 40% when it should be 75% and 64% that you cited earlier.

Ah, good catch!

Yeah, I had that for the overall chances, but that makes the eff. DMG different:

AC 13 = 71.73 DPR
AC 15 = 61.61 DPR

 

[FrogReaver]

Totally true. It also had some synergy with the -5/+10, as you're quite likely to drop CR 1/4-1/2 creatures in one attack when you average 20 damage a hit.

Yep. Or if the enemy is already injured you can go back to non -5/+10 in hopes of maximizing your chance of killing it now for greater chance at the bonus action attack.

 

[ECMO3]

Hmm...fair. The near 100% chance to get the +prof bonus once per round does really make up a lot of the delta. New SS is still behind in high accuracy situations, since it lacks the +prof damage bonus, but GWM is pretty comparable outside of extreme conditions.

In terms of raw damage numbers SS is weaker than it used to be, however in play I think it will be stronger overall due to enabling melee-range attacks without disadvantage and the +1 ASI.

 

[Oofta]

Right, you use your action to don or doff... so what? NOTHING in 5E says what that entails other than the image I posted about your shield is "carried in one hand." No strapping on your arm or anything else. According to the rules: if you go unconscious, you DROP ANYTHING you are carrying. So, I would say that is a pretty good reason to "believe" it.

Also, most shields in history were simply held in one hand behind the shield boss or on a handle.


I would simple rule that if you are paralyzed or unconscious your shield doesn't help you. I wouldn't bother with the half bonus personally.

I agree shields should be a bit "more effective" (given your edit), but basically the designers see it as half cover (tower shields would be 3/4-cover IMO). But in the sense of realism, a shield should only be effective against a certain number of opponents. However, since 5E doesn't normally use facing rules as the default, that is all hand-waved away.

If you are paralyzed while holding a shield, the enemy simply moves to a side where the shield is not and attacks without that hinderance. If you are unconscious, the enemy could use a free object interaction to move it aside, opening up your body to unhindered attack.

But, I agree, 5E is not a simulation, so I understand why the game ignores things which logically make sense, but start making the game too rule heavy for the common user (in the designers' views anyway).

You aren't just carrying a shield in D&D though. Well, I suppose you could but if you were it wouldn't add to AC. Saying "it doesn't explicitly say" could be used justify that all your armor falls off.

Some shields were held one handed, others had a loop you put your arm through. Viking shields fo example were mad to be dropped because they were designed to "catch" edged weapons, effectively disarming your opponent. However that also means they had to drop their shield.

As far as paralyzed...how far do you take it beyond advantage? Someone on leather armor that's paralyzed should have at most an 11 AC. We don't because the game values simplicity over logic.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't understand what people who think that you can drop your shield for free (or do it by accident when you're unconscious or paralyzed) think that "donning" and "doffing" mean. How do you drop your shield without doffing it? You somehow have your shield on the ground and yet it is still "donned"? So if you pick it back up it's still "equipped"? That's so weird (to me).

I see where you're justifying it RAW, but I don't get what is happening in the story.