Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8606450" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Well, I think I can understand the issue.  Let's compare a 2handed Fighter to the other options.  Weapon/Shield?  Lackluster, as you don't do a lot of damage, and if your AC gets too high, enemies ignore you and go after the real threats.  Two Weapon Fighting?  Really bad in 3.5, no doubt as a reaction to how dominating it was in 2e.  Between the insane Dex requirements and multiple Feats devoted to it to potentially it's damage up to where a Two Weapon Fighter was, without Power Attack or a penalty to hit. And really, who cares about extra attacks at your -10 iterative?Archery is pretty bad too, as it's hard to buff your damage, it's also feat dependent, and it can be defeated trivially.  So your best options are big weapon or spiked chain (which is super effective except when it's not), to the point I can totally understand why someone might think there's something wrong here!This continues in 5e, sadly.  Two Weapon Fighting is a joke at higher levels, weapon/shield is just weaker than, say, archery, and Great Weapon Fighting can deal some hellacious damage if you can get advantage.Well, archery gets the same deal with Sharpshooter, and using either a ranged weapon or a polearm can net you a bonus action attack.  So yeah, ranged combat is better in 5e, and polearms actually edge out past greatswords.  But the classic "sword and shield" is woefully undersupported, which may irritate some people.It irks me, because shields are way cooler in real life than they have ever been in D&D.</blockquote>

Verification