D&D 5E How valuable is the shield?

[CapnZapp]

Ever try making your way through a gauntlet or a cadence of arrows on a battlefield? Unless your a monk you can't block arrows without a shield so don't leave home without one.

This is D&D, not reality. A shield imposes a -2 penalty to enemy archers, nothing more.

Thanks.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I find damage mitigation to be sorely undervalued in online discussion. The reason is that it is easy to calculate a character's potential damage output, but without specific enemies being known, it's much harder to calculate how much potential damage a character absorbs.

There doesn't appear to be a shortage of ways to deal damage, but increases to defense are harder to come by. So I think a shield is a strong option for a character who does not need their other hand free.

The harder the opposition, the more value of defense.

That is, as long as your offense defeats the foes before they destroy you, you don't need a better defense. In fact you're better off increasing your offense as the optimal way to end the fight less damaged.

Only if you would end up dead before your offense finishes off the enemy do you need to sacrifice offense for defense.

Now, the sad reality is that D&D isn't geared toward fights difficult enough to grind you down from healthy to dead in one fight, so offense will always trump defense.

Put bluntly, it is an error to focus on defense under these circumstances. Choose offense instead, since ending the fight earlier is the best way of not taking any more damage.

With this in mind, it should be easy to see how the shield is undervalued in 5e. Even without feats.

But crucially: there's a reason for this! Fights where both sides go on the offensive are fast and fun.

So I'm really not suggesting defense gets a boost. It's better for players to realize it's there mostly as a world-building prop for NPCs to use.

As a player character, you mostly don't need it, and you shouldn't reduce risk even if you did, since that reduces excitement and combat speed.

Apologies for telling such frank truth bombs, but there you have it.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[hawkeyefan]

The harder the opposition, the more value of defense.

That is, as long as your offense defeats the foes before they destroy you, you don't need a better defense. In fact you're better off increasing your offense as the optimal way to end the fight less damaged.

Only if you would end up dead before your offense finishes off the enemy do you need to sacrifice offense for defense.

Now, the sad reality is that D&D isn't geared toward fights difficult enough to grind you down from healthy to dead in one fight, so offense will always trump defense.

Put bluntly, it is an error to focus on defense under these circumstances. Choose offense instead, since ending the fight earlier is the best way of not taking any more damage.

With this in mind, it should be easy to see how the shield is undervalued in 5e. Even without feats.

But crucially: there's a reason for this! Fights where both sides go on the offensive are fast and fun.

So I'm really not suggesting defense gets a boost. It's better for players to realize it's there mostly as a world-building prop for NPCs to use.

As a player character, you mostly don't need it, and you shouldn't reduce risk even if you did, since that reduces excitement and combat speed.

Apologies for telling such frank truth bombs, but there you have it.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Opinion bombs.

I'm aware if that prevailing opinion and the reasoning behind it. And I'm not even in disagreement with it. I just disagree that it's a universal truth. It really depends on the character, the other options available to him for use with his off-hand, and many other contextual factors.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Opinion bombs.

I'm aware if that prevailing opinion and the reasoning behind it. And I'm not even in disagreement with it. I just disagree that it's a universal truth. It really depends on the character, the other options available to him for use with his off-hand, and many other contextual factors.

Well, not only that (and for reasons we gave earlier in this thread), this if flat out untrue:

Only if you would end up dead before your offense finishes off the enemy do you need to sacrifice offense for defense.

Now, the sad reality is that D&D isn't geared toward fights difficult enough to grind you down from healthy to dead in one fight, so offense will always trump defense.

Also, for reasons we gave earlier. I don't think it's the norm to gain full resources after every combat, therefore, this statement above is objectively not true.

 

[CTurbo]

I never intended for this thread to turn into offense vs defense but I can see how we ended up here. I don't think picking up a shield is necessarily going to cripple every character offensively. The difference between the dueling fighting style and the GWM fighting style are not THAT great.

I'm all about the "best defense is a strong offense" way of thinking, but I still value a high AC... probably more so than most.

I made a post a while back about a vHuman Warlock starting with the Moderately Armored feat and I was shocked to see so many question the move and tell me not to bother. I mean that's starting with a 14AC vs starting with a 17AC at level 1. That's huge to me. A Warlock holding a shield is every bit as offensive as a Warlock without one. There is no sacrifice here that I'm aware of. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a Warlock only needs one hand free to function correctly right?

Another good example I like, a vHuman Rogue starting with the Moderately Armored feat has the same exact 14AC vs 17AC decision, BUT... the shield wielding Rogue loses it's option of an offhand attack giving the shieldless Rogue twice as many chances to hit for that sweet sneak damage. On the other hand, the shield Rogue will always have it's bonus action ready for it's Cunning action. That's a pretty fair trade if you ask me, and I think the Moderately armored Rogue would be nearly impossible to take down thanks to it's higher AC and it's more reliable Cunning Action.