D&D General Sword & Board: From Standard to Exotic

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think it is more to do with the weak implementation of shields.

A, B, and C won't matter if swapping from shield to another weapon wasn't such a low hit to defense in every edition of D&D. The increase in offense has to be factored in the decrease of defense.

An extra attack, even if situational or weak, is often better than +1 to defenses vs a massive d20 roll.

Well, I mean ... saying that they've made DPR too good ... is the flip side of saying that shields aren't good enough.

It's like an arms race, but while DPR is getting more and more (including finesse weapons that you can add dex damage to, feats for two-handed weapons, etc.), for the most part ... shields haven't kept pace. If anything, they've been nerfed, given that AC was more valuable in TSR-era editions, and magic shield are capped at +3 in 5e.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I don't think you actually need high STR to make a decent sword and board character in 5e, shield + rapier lets you use dex and be pretty much as effective as you'd be with shield + longsword.

I found Paladins will also usually like shields with swords since smites let them keep a pretty high DPR without having to resort to GWM. PAM helps them a lot, but you can just use shield + spear or quarterstaff and it works out fine, afaik.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would have liked to see shield mastery also give a +1 bonus to AC

 

[Minigiant]

Well, I mean ... saying that they've made DPR too good ... is the flip side of saying that shields aren't good enough.

It's like an arms race, but while DPR is getting more and more (including finesse weapons that you can add dex damage to, feats for two-handed weapons, etc.), for the most part ... shields haven't kept pace. If anything, they've been nerfed, given that AC was more valuable in TSR-era editions, and magic shield are capped at +3 in 5e.

I'm saying that shield were never good.

Shields were just artificially kept via by the lack of rules for anything else but GWF and RWF.

The second the rules for another type of fighting was introduced or GWF/RWF were promoted, the weakness of W&S shone bright.

It's less that DPR getting more. It's that D&D was always heavily tilted to armor for defense at the detriment of shields. Armor took 6 to 8 slots on the AC range before specialization or magic thought the editions. Shields struggled to give even a +4 before specialization
or magic. Usually you got +1 or 2.

Armor could give you +8 to AC in 3e-5e Shields give you +2. You are trading +2 AC for +4 damage, 5 foot reach, or a whole nother attack.

 

[Stormonu]

1. Hit points. Sure, the fighters got d10 hit points and a con bonus. But the other classes were at a severe disadvantage- like MUs, who got d4 (and rarely had a con bonus). This meant that (for example) fighters had to soak up all the damage because other characters absolutely could not. And more play was concentrated at lower levels- AD&D was concentrated at "name level" and lower- you didn't have a whole lot of 15th level characters, and even if you did, they could no longer accumulate full hit points under the rules.

Wait a minute - where have I heard that argument before...?

On topic ... 1E was heavily slanted towards Fighters getting Plate + Shield (and magical at that), and all other forms of protections were substandard. Compiled with the fact weapon damage per hit didn't go up but fighter THAC0 did every level (and monsters, your primary "other" foe just lagging slightly behind), the ability to consistently hit the target vastly outpaced the ability to defend one's self. Shields were only helpful if they had magical bonuses, otherwise it quickly became wiser to put a weapon in the off-hand and take that opponent down faster.

Also, as I recall, shields (or at least the magic bonus) added to certain saving throws, such as against Wands or Dragon's breath. It's a nice add-on, but not something you want to rely on unless you intend to be standing in the way of a lot of dragons or wizards.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My only experience playing 1e was the Gold Box computer games. Since they did follow the math of the game correctly, that does give me some insight as to the value of shields.

Generally in a party of 6 I’d have one guy with a two-handed sword for more damage (especially on large opponents). The cleric would be mace/flail plus shield, there would be a thief and a magic-user, and the remaining 2 front rankers would be longsword plus shield. In these games you could choose to max your rolled stats (which I did), and there was almost always multiclassing or dual classing going on, so there was plenty of spellcasting, but there was no option for fighting with two weapons. Over thousands of attacks being made and received and play from level 1 up through mid teens (and some beyond) here are my conclusions:

Having a magical shield versus a bigger sword makes an enormous difference. I enjoyed the guy with the two-handed sword, but if the other two front liners had been doing that too I don‘t think things would have gone well. By contrast, if I had just had that guy use a shield too, I seriously doubt it would have hampered the party’s effectiveness. When you are fighting lots and lots of foes, not being hit as much usually matters more than potentially taking down your opponents faster. Occasionally (like fighting dragons in some games) taking down an opponent before it can pull out a second devastating attack and kill half your party is useful, but thats the exception—and in that case having mobility to get enough PCs beating down the opponent matters more than the size of the sword.

 

[Minigiant]

On topic ... 1E was heavily slanted towards Fighters getting Plate + Shield (and magical at that), and all other forms of protections were substandard.

Other forms of protection weren't substandard. They practically didn't exist. The fall happened when other protcetions and weapon styles appeared and showed the staleness of shields.

D&D was built on having one real path to defend oneself. Heavier and Heavier Armor.
1e gave Plate -7 AC and Shield -1.
3e gave Plate +8 (or 9)AC and a heavy shield+ 2
5e gave Plate +8 AC and a shield+ 2

1e gave a Greatsword 1d10 damage
3e gave a Greatsword 2d6 damage and a fighter can double up on Power Attack damage
5e gave a Greatsword 2d6 damage and a fighter can reroll 1s and 2s.

D&D put its combat focus on Weapons and Armor not Shields. Other games let shields shine. Hell, 4e let shields shine.

 

[Dioltach]

I think it's simpler: two weapons means more dice to roll. (Also, a lot of pop culture has heroes attacking with two weapons, which looks a lot kewler than sword and board.)

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I wonder if shields would be more highly valued in 5e if more subclasses had "taunt" abilities that made enemies focus on you and/or get debuffed for attacking allies other than you. Then the AC increase might actually be put to use.

 

[Minigiant]

I wonder if shields would be more highly valued in 5e if more subclasses had "taunt" abilities that made enemies focus on you and/or get debuffed for attacking allies other than you. Then the AC increase might actually be put to use.

Likely no. Because the +2 AC is not worth the +4 damage or extra 1d6+X attack.

4e had changes and it made shields matter by giving shield users more dynamic bonuses that TWF fighters.

Also in 4e, the TWF was split between the fighter and ranger. The TWF ranger was all offense and mobility but lacked a challenge. The TWF fighter was defensive but couldn't not focus both attacks on a single target easily and didn't wear plate. Therefore a W&S fighter in 4E had way more AC than the TWF fighter for only a small loss in offense.