Shields useless for non-fighters?

[Mengu]

Based on using KotSF pregens, I can tell you there is a mountain of difference between Scale mail no shield, and platemail with shield. The Paladin with shield gets hit considerably less frequently. So much so most monsters just give up on attacking him, and go after the easier targets (except for his mark).

I intend to play a Dragonborn Warlord, and don't see any reason not to use a light shield. A two-handed weapon gives minimal advantage. My job is not to be a Striker, it's to be a Leader, and I feel my survival is more important to the party. I will also upgrade my armor to scale for a bit more survivability, and no skill check penalties. I'll be happy at AC 18, and happier when I find a Bashing Shield or Shield of Protection. I'll probably stick with the Light Shield because again, it has no skill check penalty, and makes it easier to pull out a potion and such.

 

[Blue]

I see it the other way around. In order to have three good defenses, you need three good stats. If you have a build that doesn't do much with Dex or Int, you can focus on just two stats, and then use shields and in epic lightning reflexes to boost your reflex defense.

What shields do for reflex is at least as important as what they do for AC.

Shield specialization isn't the normal route for that, because it has a high dex. It's icing for the high dex character that (occasionally) pulls out a shield and perhaps has evasion and gets a crazy good reflex roll.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

 

[fuindordm]

Hmm... I'm not convinced that getting hit 40% of the time is going to be much better in practice than getting hit 50% of the time. But for that matter, is the extra damage from a 2d6 weapon over a 1d10 weapon any more important?

The problem (or feature) is that all PCs and monsters (other than minions) go down after several hits, not just one or two. in this context, any optimizing we can do has much less of an effect on the course of combat.

I guess I'll try the shield, and if I don't like it I can always change my combat style. This is a lot easier to do now, too.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

p.s. I'm really surprised that the shield and armor specialization bonuses don't stack. I understand that both are labeled as feat bonuses, but still--I wonder if this is intentional or an oversight?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I guess I'll try the shield, and if I don't like it I can always change my combat style. This is a lot easier to do now, too.

Exactly. No reason not to switch between the two as the situation warrants. Lots of mooks? Sword and board. One big bad monster who you're usings your 3[w] dailies on? Two hander.

 

[Danceofmasks]

There is a reason.
It costs a standard action to put on or remove a shield.

 

[Dausuul]

Hmm... I'm not convinced that getting hit 40% of the time is going to be much better in practice than getting hit 50% of the time.

It's like increasing your hit points by 25% against monsters that target AC (which is most of them).

 

[Blackbrrd]

The fun part is the thread "Two handed weapons are useless".

Because a two-handed weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus only gives 1d10 damage, while a bastard sword gives 1d10 damage as well... You can argue that you can go for a 2d6 damage weapon for higher damage, but then you are at a lower to-hit. If you compare a maul wielding character to one wielding a bastard sword and shield, the sword guy will hit a bit more often, for a little less damage and have used one more feat, but he will be hit a bit less.

The hint is: there isn't enough difference between sword and board and a two-hander to make any of them a bad choice. I would like to applaud WotC for fixing this in 4th edition. In 3.5 the difference between sword and board and two-handed was huge. The monsters would hit you anyway, but you could do 2x the damage with a two-handed weapon. (Its the general rule for higher levels if you didn't use every single splat-book there was to get your AC high enough that it mattered).