D&D 5E Low levels: Offense vs. Defense

[Chuckthe Painter]

I am currently running a Dwarf fighter built for offense (great weapon fighting style and feat) however I find I have been running him more as a defender rocking sword (hammer) and board because the def bump from the shield is making him a great deal harder to hurt. Combats run long, but he stays unhit. I wonder would simply killing the baddies with massive damage have the same effect?

I feel hitting 5th will give me more more damage potential picking up a 2nd attaack finnaly making defense less important. Thoughts?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

At low levels, AC is more important because you don't have many HP to protect you. When you get to higher levels, it's often more acceptable to take a hit, because no single hit is going to drop you regardless.

The shield bonus also matters more at low levels, because attack bonuses grow more quickly than AC does, so +2 covers more of your vulnerable range. If you would be hit on a die roll of 14, but the shield makes is so they need a 16, then that's a bigger difference than if you would be hit on a die roll of 8 and the shield makes it a 10.

On the other end, when you're fighting goblins with 7hp or orcs with 15hp, the difference between dealing 8 damage and dealing 12 damage is negligible; you're probably going to one-shot the goblin either way, and the orc is probably going to take two hits regardless. As you guessed, this changes significantly when you get your second attack.

 

[guachi]

I've found that in table after table low level PCs boost AC as fast as possible for the reasons stated above: they don't have that many HP.

 

[Stalker0]

I agree. Higher level you both have the hp to take it and the healing to recover. At low level you are short on both, so AC is more important

 

[Warmaster Horus]

My Great Weapon & Polearm Master has a Cube of Force. In most fights he can turn it to 'keep out living creatures' and attack from 10' without fear of being hit back.

 

[FrogReaver]

It depends. If monsters tend to engage you and leave your other party members alone or attack them significantly less then ac / hp is more important for you.

If not then offense so you kill them before they kill your squishier party members is more important for you.

Depends more on how the DM handles monster tactics than anything else.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Another thing about going for defense at lower levels - few of the monsters you'll be facing have significant enough bonuses to mitigate a high AC, outside of lucky rolls. Once you start facing things like dragons, barring unlucky rolls or focusing on your AC to an absurd point, you're going to get hit more often than not.

 

[BookBarbarian]

AC is an interesting thing. I've found at low level going from 14-16 is not a big deal, but 16 to 18 is pretty big, and 18-20 is huge.

On the whole I've found investing in Defense is usually "cheaper" than in offense. You could get decent AC by spending gold alone. But GWM, PAM, SS, CE all cost ASIs which you get so few of.

And if you've already invested in Defense, choosing a related fighting style or a single Feat is still pretty "cheap".

 

[Phion]

I tend to go for the offensive option but consider defence through alternative means such as considering position i.e. going to an adjacent square that is not adjacent to the enemy and then if the enemy dies back off with remainder of movement to create distance from the remaining enemies/ take cover from ranged attacks if available (which they may not do if it makes attack of opportunity from my allies).

Using a polearm is really good for this style of fighting due to the reach and the unconventional defence creates good opportunities for more offensive attacks with the polearm master feat opportunity attack

 

[lonelynoose]

Invincibility lies in the Defense, chance for victory in the Offense.