Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 7159330" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.</blockquote>

Verification