D&D 5E How valuable is the shield?

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The value of the shield varies on how 'available' AC is in your particular game.

How soon can your characters access studded leather, breastplate, half-plate, and plate mail? Are you playing with feats? How plentiful are magic items? Can you pick and choose what items you receive? Is the Bladesinger subclass allowed? How about the playtest subclasses from Unearthed Arcana?

All of these make higher AC values more accessible, making the flat +2 from a mundane shield 'less valuable'.

On the contrary, because of how attack rolls work each point of increased AC has a greater impact on how often you get hit. So the more options you have for increasing your AC, the more valuable it is to take as many as possible and make yourself nearly impossible to hit.

 

[Blue]

I feel that the shield is under utilized in 5E, because many players find it "boring." It only helps on defense, and many players prefer to be proactive (deal moar damage!). IMO, a heavily armored character with a shield and the Defense fighting style, having an impressive 21 AC potential before magic, is a force to be reckoned with, even if he deals about 4-5 damage less per hit.

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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I was just curious what everybody thinks about the shield in 5e. I like it a lot and I think it's a powerful item to have. Of course it's not great enough that every character should have one or anything, but I think it's a great tool for a lot of classes.

+2 to AC is huge for anybody in 5e.

I also think the Moderately Armored feat is a great choice if you're only proficient in Light Armor(Rogue, Lore Bard, and Warlock) and have an odd Dex even if you don't use Medium armor.

Thoughts?

Don't overlook the fact that shields are useful even for PCs who are not proficient in their use. If you've got e.g. a Dex 18 Lore Bard in Mage Armor (AC 17), and you're fleeing on horseback from hobgoblins while hobgoblin archers in fixed fortifications bombard you with arrows, you might be tempted to wish you had the Moderately Armored feat just to boost your AC from 17 to 19... but you don't need it!

If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.

Donning a shield takes only one action, doesn't prevent you from Dashing, Dodging, awarding Bardic Inspiration, or concentrating on spells that you've already cast. You can get that AC 19 for "free" (in feat terms) just by temporarily giving up the ability to cast spells and spending an action. If there are twenty hobgoblin archers shooting at the softest target they see, that extra +2 AC could be the difference between taking 13.7 points of damage per round vs. only 7. If it takes you 4 rounds to get out of range, having a shield just saved you 26 HP!

Just something to bear in mind: carry a shield even if you're not proficient in it.

 

[KarinsDad]

You know that was just a very broad example of the point I was making, right? It wasn't an actual analysis of the exact numbers, or even limited to shields at all, but to the general concept of how defense can be better than offense. In any situation where you end the combat encounter with more resources, the better, even if that means the combat encounter takes longer than it would if you went full offense. That's the only point I was making.

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.

It's also true even taken to the extreme. I.e., even if you can kill every monster you ever face in one hit, you will end up taking damage at some point (because you won't always go first). Therefore, how long you last before you go down is limited. However, if you can prevent all damage to you, even if you only inflict 1 HP of damage per round yourself, then you can last forever and win every battle, even if it takes a long time. Forever > limited amount. I know that's the most extreme, but it illustrates the point as well.

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.

 

[KarinsDad]

(Well, you can one-hand wield a staff and Polearm Mastery, but I haven't seen it.)

I did. My wife's Paladin did that. It was kind of like playing a Monk with much better AC (3+ attacks per round, not as much damage per attack, but had more opportunities to crit and spike). The extra attack per round over a normal sword and board Paladin did result in slightly more average damage and slightly better tanking (due to limited extra OAs). My wife often rolls crappy to hit rolls (or so it seems), so it gave her a better chance to at least do some damage most every round and she enjoyed that. She gets annoyed if she misses on every attack in a round.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Except that shields do not give 2 dmg reduction per round. To do that, 40% of the monster damage has to be negated which means that +2 AC has to relate to 40% of monster damage. The basic case where this happens is when the monster needs to roll a 17 to hit without the shield and a 19 to hit with the shield (note: this is not 50/50 since a critical does more damage than a normal hit, but it is not 40/60 either since criticals do not do double damage, more like 45/55, but close enough).

Sacrosanct's numbers, while just an example, are plausible.

Even wimpy monsters have +4 to hit, so that would be AC 21 without the shield, AC 23 with the shield (very few PCs have this high of AC at 25 hit points). Since the monster is averaging 5 points of damage (i.e. the monster averages 5 points of damage with a 17 to hit (20% chance to hit), he actually does 25 points of damage per attack (not many creatures have 25 hit points and also do 25 points of average damage on a hit). So your example is really skewed damage-wise.

IME it's not uncommon for monsters to have disadvantage on ranged attack rolls. Disadvantage magnifies the effect of AC. Simple case: goblins (+4 to hit) against Dex 16 and leather armor (AC 15). Normally they need to roll 11+ at disadvantage to hit, which happens 25% of the time. Add a shield and they need 13+ at disadvantage to hit, which happens 16% of the time. That's a 36% reduction in damage, which is the same ballpark as what Sacrosanc just suggested. If the target were wearing Mage Armor instead of leather armor it would be a 39% reduction in damage; half-plate and it's 44%.

Sacrosanct's point is correct.

 

[KarinsDad]

Donning a shield takes only one action, doesn't prevent you from Dashing, Dodging, awarding Bardic Inspiration, or concentrating on spells that you've already cast. You can get that AC 19 for "free" (in feat terms) just by temporarily giving up the ability to cast spells and spending an action. If there are twenty hobgoblin archers shooting at the softest target they see, that extra +2 AC could be the difference between taking 13.7 points of damage per round vs. only 7. If it takes you 4 rounds to get out of range, having a shield just saved you 26 HP!

Just something to bear in mind: carry a shield even if you're not proficient in it.

If 20 Hobgoblin archers are shooting at your Bard, using an action to put on your shield more or less adds at least a half round to the time it takes to get out of range. Nor does it help at all against the one Hobgoblin per round that criticals.

If he wants to run away, he should just dodge. 8 rounds dodging is more effective as 4.5 rounds of +2 AC. It even prevents most criticals. He would almost never get criticalled. Each hobgoblin would hit 12.25% of the time instead of the 25% of the time with the shield and instead of 1 critical against him per round or 4 criticals, it would be a 40% chance of 1 critical. The shield also takes a round to remove.

The shield doesn't help that much and action economy-wise, nothing stops the Hobgoblins from switching targets. The Bard could even put on the shield and dodge in future rounds and all it does is lean action economy towards the NPCs (i.e. the Bard is not really helping here).


The Bard would be much better off casting Hypnotic Pattern on most or all of the 20 Hobgoblins. Or Invisibility on himself. Or cast Minor Illusion and hide in an illusory box. Better yet, cast Minor Illusion, hide in the box, and then cast Vicious Mockery on Hobgoblins from inside the Minor Illusion box.


The point is that in the one time per gaming year that using up actions to put on the shield and take off the shield, the Bard can typically be doing something else and not bother with lugging around a shield. The spell casting restriction is just too great.

 

[KarinsDad]

IME it's not uncommon for monsters to have disadvantage on ranged attack rolls. Disadvantage magnifies the effect of AC. Simple case: goblins (+4 to hit) against Dex 16 and leather armor (AC 15). Normally they need to roll 11+ at disadvantage to hit, which happens 25% of the time. Add a shield and they need 13+ at disadvantage to hit, which happens 16% of the time. That's a 36% reduction in damage, which is the same ballpark as what Sacrosanc just suggested. If the target were wearing Mage Armor instead of leather armor it would be a 39% reduction in damage; half-plate and it's 44%.

Sacrosanct's point is correct.

Once in a blue moon. You had to throw disadvantage into the equation to get his numbers to work? WT?

How many times does it matter though? How many times in most games are PCs attacked by a bunch of foes at long range and they don't have a boatload of other options where pulling out a shield is the best they can do? Sure, for a PC who often uses a shield, strapping on a shield in round one if unprepared for combat is often a good idea. For everyone else, they typically have much better options.


And, you can skew the situation to one that shows an advantage for having a shield in a given specific circumstance (like your 20 Hobgoblin scenario or your disadvantaged at range example). But the vast majority of the time in most games, PCs and NPCs are fighting within range of each other. Fights rarely happen out in the open with many hundreds of feet between foes, at least IME. For those using grids at their tables, the distances are just too large to easily accommodate those types of encounters. Yes, it does happen once in a while and it sometimes happens for a few rounds until combatants get within melee range. But, the OPs question concerned how valuable shields are. There are often much better options than pulling out a shield. Shields are valuable for some PCs builds and not valuable at all to other PC builds.

For example, they are practically useless for a Ranger Archer build 99% of the time. And I cannot recall a melee PC who switched mid-encounter from no shield to shield. It just takes too long and mostly wastes a round. I could understand where a good player could do so mid-encounter because the PC is really hurt, but I don't recall having seen it in actual play.

Stepping out of total cover, casting Firebolt, and then stepping back into total cover is much more effective for a spell caster than putting on a Shield. There are just too many other good tactics for PCs who do not normally use a shield than to waste a round putting on a shield the vast majority of the time.


If in that rare circumstance when you are the surviving member of a party and running away, having a shield on is better than not having one on (assuming that you are also out of good defensive or mobility spells and nonproficient with the shield). But the vast majority of the time, having a shield is either standard operating procedure for a given PC, or it is not. If it is SOP for a character, then that PC tends to not do as much damage and helps less with action economy. There are exceptions like Clerics casting Spiritual Guardians where they both do a lot of damage and they need to survive and not lose concentration. Shields are great for most Cleric builds.

It really all depends on the PC build and the scenario of the encounter. Pros and Cons.


The majority of PC builds do not use a shield and adding one to them weakens the PC more than it helps. Most arcane spell casters, monks and rogues almost never do. Barbarians often do not, nor do ranged Rangers. Mostly it is just Clerics, Druids (when not wild shaping), Fighters, and Paladins. Even melee Rangers tend to go either two weapon or two handed weapon. Basically 4 or 5 classes out of 12 with an occasional other build here and there. Offense tends to trump defense.

If shields were so great, more players would multiclass to get them (or would play single weapon melee builds). For most players, the gain is not worth the loss.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If 20 Hobgoblin archers are shooting at your Bard, using an action to put on your shield more or less adds at least a half round to the time it takes to get out of range. Nor does it help at all against the one Hobgoblin per round that criticals.

You didn't do the math, did you? If you do, you'll find it's still worth it. Crits with disadvantage are only 1 in 400 anyway.

If he wants to run away, he should just dodge. 8 rounds dodging is more effective as 4.5 rounds of +2 AC. It even prevents most criticals. He would almost never get criticalled. Each hobgoblin would hit 12.25% of the time instead of the 25% of the time with the shield and instead of 1 critical against him per round or 4 criticals, it would be a 40% chance of 1 critical. The shield also takes a round to remove.

Dodging is pointless if the enemy already has disadvantage, which as I mentioned is not uncommon for ranged fire from monsters. Besides, disadvantage and shields stack, unlike e.g. long range disadvantage + dodging.

The shield doesn't help that much and action economy-wise, nothing stops the Hobgoblins from switching targets. The Bard could even put on the shield and dodge in future rounds and all it does is lean action economy towards the NPCs (i.e. the Bard is not really helping here).

In the scenario under consideration, the objective does not require the bard's action economy contribution. You're not trying to kill all the hobgoblins; you're just trying to safely get out of range.

The Bard would be much better off casting Hypnotic Pattern on most or all of the 20 Hobgoblins.

Not feasible under the circumstances. At best you'll catch 4 or 5 of them, and not all of them will fail their saves.

Or Invisibility on himself. Or cast Minor Illusion and hide in an illusory box. Better yet, cast Minor Illusion, hide in the box, and then cast Vicious Mockery on Hobgoblins from inside the Minor Illusion box.

That's a good way to get killed--hiding in an illusory box while the rest of the party retreats.

The point is that in the one time per gaming year that using up actions to put on the shield and take off the shield, the Bard can typically be doing something else and not bother with lugging around a shield. The spell casting restriction is just too great.

Not really. The particular fleeing-from-hobgoblins scenario may be rare, but most scenarios are rare--D&D is a game of variety. You don't flee from hobgoblins every week. But having a shield is useful under other circumstances too.

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.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Once in a blue moon. You had to throw disadvantage into the equation to get his numbers to work? WT?

How many times does it matter though? How many times in most games are PCs attacked by a bunch of foes at long range and they don't have a boatload of other options where pulling out a shield is the best they can do? Sure, for a PC who often uses a shield, strapping on a shield in round one if unprepared for combat is often a good idea. For everyone else, they typically have much better options.

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