Poor sword and shield?
- Thread starter FreeTheSlaves
- Start date
FreeTheSlaves said:
Honestly, I think Sword & Board is by far the most powerful of the three melee weapon styles (Sword & Board, Two Weapon, and Two-Hander).
Here's why.
1. Two Weapon fighting frankly sucks a whole lot. Your AC isn't good and the extra attacks don't do enough damage because of the reduced STR bonus. Now if you have a feat or ability that lets you negate this, then you're trading AC or extra attacks that do normal damage. In addition, you're taking hit penalites, and sometimes very substantial ones, if you want to fight with a decent weapon.
2. Two Handed weapons are pretty good. You hit really hard and you can have reach, but again, your AC just isn't there. It's possible for wear this guy out pretty quick because he doesn't have the AC and he isn't making lots and lots of attacks so he can't fend off a horde of mooks like the Two-Weapon guy.
3. Sword & Board guys have it all. Their damage is average, but they have the shield to boost their AC. In addition, they have that much more room to stack on cool defensive enchantments that other fighters must find a way to cram into their armor. They're less vulnerable to archers and hordes because of the boosted AC, and with the right feats, they can also use the shield as a weapon and keep the benefits. It's the best of offense and defense.
Thels
First Post
It's all a matter of counterweight... Better protection or better damage. Although doing more damage sounds cooler than having a higher armor, a higher armor can have great use.
You could sacrifice a lot more for additional armor. Take Expertise for example. An additional 25% of the time you'll miss, but you get +5 armor back for it. With 3e you can have your armor go through the roof without even needing magic that it ain't even fun.
Take a halfling, get a dex of at least 16 so you have max dex with breastplate (or 18 and max dex with chain shirt). Take a large shield and get expertise and dodge.
+1 racial
+5 armor
+2 shield
+3 dex
+5 expertise
+1 dodge
+2 defensive fighting
Armor Class 29 at level 5. Heck, it even allows you to have armor class 25 at level 1 (26 if you go full defensive). Of course your hits totally suck, but who cares. The idea is that you hold off the bad guys while your friends prepare some moves and/or spells to finish them off.
Not enough? Sidestep to Sorceror for one level and get that shield spell. If you got that dex of 18 or higher, the shield spell offsets the bonus of your armor+shield together. They say it gets nerved to +4 in 3.5e, but that's not really true, since armor and shield will be different bonusses, so it'll stack up with your armor bonus. It might even stack with TWD, since you don't need to hold your magic shield in your hands.
Another option is to get a level in rogue, and get tumble at 5 ranks early on. Raises your defensive fighting by another point. This one ain't worth it IMHO, since you could still take tumble the normal way from level 7.
Now consider that that armor is without full plate or magic items, as well as without any PrC or Feat not found in the PHB. Add those and armor gets insane very fast, so that monsters hit you only on a natural 20 and never critical you. Could be really worth it if you can stand the idea that you're not the one doing the killing.
You could sacrifice a lot more for additional armor. Take Expertise for example. An additional 25% of the time you'll miss, but you get +5 armor back for it. With 3e you can have your armor go through the roof without even needing magic that it ain't even fun.
Take a halfling, get a dex of at least 16 so you have max dex with breastplate (or 18 and max dex with chain shirt). Take a large shield and get expertise and dodge.
+1 racial
+5 armor
+2 shield
+3 dex
+5 expertise
+1 dodge
+2 defensive fighting
Armor Class 29 at level 5. Heck, it even allows you to have armor class 25 at level 1 (26 if you go full defensive). Of course your hits totally suck, but who cares. The idea is that you hold off the bad guys while your friends prepare some moves and/or spells to finish them off.
Not enough? Sidestep to Sorceror for one level and get that shield spell. If you got that dex of 18 or higher, the shield spell offsets the bonus of your armor+shield together. They say it gets nerved to +4 in 3.5e, but that's not really true, since armor and shield will be different bonusses, so it'll stack up with your armor bonus. It might even stack with TWD, since you don't need to hold your magic shield in your hands.
Another option is to get a level in rogue, and get tumble at 5 ranks early on. Raises your defensive fighting by another point. This one ain't worth it IMHO, since you could still take tumble the normal way from level 7.
Now consider that that armor is without full plate or magic items, as well as without any PrC or Feat not found in the PHB. Add those and armor gets insane very fast, so that monsters hit you only on a natural 20 and never critical you. Could be really worth it if you can stand the idea that you're not the one doing the killing.
Actually, 2-weaponing is good if:
1) You do a lot of bonus dice of damage (due to sneak attacks or elemental bling-blings on your weapons)
2) You're targetting a creature with a high enough AC that you need something absurd to hit it anyway
3) You care less about hitting hard than about hitting at least once per turn
Number three is the one everyone forgets. With bonuses from strength, enhancement of items, and magical spells, hits start to do an increasingly cool amount of Minimum Damage at, what, levels 5 and higher? And there are cases where the issue is not "do the most damage immediately" but "keep this guy distracted, keep whittling him down, ensure that I hit him at least once per round".
That's the benefit of 2-weaponing. 2-Handers get to do more damage, sword & boarders get to have a higher AC, and one-hand-free people get to grab potions or manipulate levers with their off hands...
1) You do a lot of bonus dice of damage (due to sneak attacks or elemental bling-blings on your weapons)
2) You're targetting a creature with a high enough AC that you need something absurd to hit it anyway
3) You care less about hitting hard than about hitting at least once per turn
Number three is the one everyone forgets. With bonuses from strength, enhancement of items, and magical spells, hits start to do an increasingly cool amount of Minimum Damage at, what, levels 5 and higher? And there are cases where the issue is not "do the most damage immediately" but "keep this guy distracted, keep whittling him down, ensure that I hit him at least once per round".
That's the benefit of 2-weaponing. 2-Handers get to do more damage, sword & boarders get to have a higher AC, and one-hand-free people get to grab potions or manipulate levers with their off hands...
Thels
First Post
Depends. 2-Weaponeres will always be a bit behind on 2-handers and SaB-ers on their attack value, so you might hit more against a creature with a decent AC, you're probably hitting less against creatures with a high AC.
I really wonder what that 2nd option is doing there, as it seems 2-Weaponers are worst at hitting insanehigh AC (unless everyone can only hit on a natural 20 anyway, in which case, the 2-Weaponers just get one extra try/round).
I really wonder what that 2nd option is doing there, as it seems 2-Weaponers are worst at hitting insanehigh AC (unless everyone can only hit on a natural 20 anyway, in which case, the 2-Weaponers just get one extra try/round).
Shard O'Glase
First Post
I've found at many levels 2-handed types take less damage than sword and boarders. At higher levels where the sword and boarders have a really bad assed shield they now take less, but lower levels the two handed guy killed the monster faster, and last time I checked dead tings hurt you no longer. 3e was so offense heavy that until you got your AC to absurd levels the best tactic if you wanted to not take damage was to remove your foe quicker with a suitibly high offense.
If this is still true or not I can't say until I persue the new MM.
If this is still true or not I can't say until I persue the new MM.
