Shield or no shield?

[Savage Wombat]

The math of D&D assumes that a monster should hit a fighter of a given level X% of the time.

Should the math assume that the fighter in question is using a shield?

My players tend to ignore shields, as the bonus damage from Power Attacking is too good to give up. This means their AC is low, and they take more damage. And the higher level the game goes, the more the math slides against them.

Is this the way the game should work, in your opinion? Is the sword-and-board fighter "normal", and everyone else "lightly-armored"? Is the two-handed fighter "normal", and everyone with a shield going for a high AC? Or should we build from a point in the middle of the two?

 

[Sunseeker]

The sword and board, two-weapon, and two-handed fighter are all legitimate builds of the fighter, or should be. Heck might even throw in archer-fighter in there too.

Given that the shield is on average only 1 point, I think the game can assume either way without any serious problems.

 

[RangerWickett]

I would like it if, when dealing with two humanoids fighting each other, wearing heavy armor and a shield and wielding a mace or flail is your best bet. It's how it worked in reality until guns were invented.

Alternately, a dagger and a precision strike to bypass the armor. Preferably done after you and a bunch of your friends tackle the guy and drag him down.

If armor is not an option (and, really, it shouldn't be in most dungeon-exploration/climb/jump/swim situations), then a long sword (longsword, rapier, scimitar) should be the ideal weapon against another human being. Your off hand should have a buckler, a dagger, or (if you're really well trained) another sword.

Against a large monster, an axe or spear probably will serve you well. Depending on the type of monster, maybe one-handed, maybe two. The bigger the monster, the less value a shield is (because the impact will kill you anyway), so the bigger the weapon you'll want.

I think a 'standard' fighting-type character should wear studded leather armor, have a light shield strapped to his back, and carry an axe, with a sword at one hip, a spool of rope at the other, daggers in each boot, and a torch in his spare hand.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think the above posters are talking two different editions

In 3E a shield could be up to +7 AC with magic, and maybe +2 from feats or the like
In 4E only +2 (maybe an additional +1 for magic, and a +1 for a feat.)


I would like to see the shield not being considered the default choice like it was in 3E, but not give much of a bonus.

 

[Rhenny]

I think that the choice to use a shield should be rewarded, so set base sans shield.

 

[Mattachine]

In D&D, shields provide a slight to moderate bonus. I hate that.

Shields should provide much better protection. It is really much harder to hit someone using a shield.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The math shouldn't be so tight as to assume anything regarding an exact AC.

What if the fighter has a DEX penalty?

Too tight a fixation on balancing math always misses the actual mark because its based on a sample size of 1.

3E showed us that math was worked out for fighters perfectly so long as you were a Tordek or Regdar clone. Design monsters to be as tough or wimpy as they need to be in relation to a normal person in the gameworld and adjust from there.

Balancing an entire species of creature on its chance to score a hit on a specific model fighter is pointless.

 

[triqui]

What's the difference?

If the game assume monsters hit ... say... 50% against a shielded fighter, they they'll hit 60% (or whatever a shield gives as bonus) against two handed fighters. If it hits 50% against two handed fighters, then they'll hit 40% against sword&shield fighters. In any case, the difference is 10%...

 

[Grazzt]

In D&D, shields provide a slight to moderate bonus. I hate that.

Shields should provide much better protection. It is really much harder to hit someone using a shield.

Agree with this. Shields should provide a higher bonus to AC IMO.

 

[Incenjucar]

In 4E, every bonus was significant, and shields added to two defenses and gave you additional options.

I feel that ,as has typically been the case, using your off-hand for something should always be a benefit. +Damage, +Defense, +Versatility, etc. An empty off-hand should be the assumption, and having an empty off-hand should be meaningful when it comes to interacting with the environment or your gear. Any advantages gained by filling that off-hand are then weighed against that loss.