|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's take a level 20 fighter. Give em all the bells and whistles
30str, 20 dex (all we need ATM)
Said fighter has +5 sword (or great sword)
SnB fighter is doing 10(str)+12(PA) (spec/magic weapon/ect are a wash)
Same fighter with two handed is doing 15(str) + 18(PA) for a mere 11 damage more, and the SnB fighter has potential to use TWF.
The SnB fighter can get up to +8 AC over the Twohander (+5 heavy shield, +shield focus)
Sure it takes away gold spent on other items, but only 100k (heh, only,)
I see the point if you use the two handed fighter archetype, but then you are giving up even more defense.(for IMO ridiculous damage the archetype IMHO should be nerfed the damage is stupid good.)
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF rewards offense over defense. The ultimate defense is killing your opponent before he gets a turn.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer having a shield too. Fits the image of my rpg warrior ideal much better. However, wielding big two-handed weapon leads to dealing more damage, and enemies with no hit points generally stop attacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main reason I consider two-handers better is that they end the fights faster. They dish out more damage so the monster dies in, say, 2 rounds instead of in 3 or 4. That means the monster does less damage because it makes fewer attacks before it dies.
And, frankly, unless you go total-tank and seriously, I mean very seriously, max out your AC to the highest value imaginable, using all your cash and feats and traits and everything, unless you do that the monsters are going to hit you anyway, so killing them sooner is the best way to avoid damage. Not AC.
Besides, by the time you're talking numbers like that, most monsters attack with things that don't care much about AC - touch attacks, energy attacks, spells, SLAs, etc. The only way to survive those is to make sure they can't use them, and if they live 3-4 rounds they get to use them 3-4 times, but if they only live 2 rounds, they use them a lot less.
And, finally, the metagame reason. If a dungeon has 12 encounters and every encounter takes you a full hour of real time to finish the battle, then that dungeon takes at least 12 hours to finish. But if you can finish those same battles in half an hour each, you can wrap up the dungeon in only 6 hours. That leaves you 6 extra hours for the other fun things of the game, like exploring, roleplaying, BS-ing with your friends, or even starting another dungeon and killing more stuff. In other words, you get more of EVERYTHING done if you kill the monsters faster.
Because 2 hits with two-handed is equal to 3 hits with one handed! That mere 11 damage is a 50% increase in damage output. That's a big increase!
You get more benefit from haste.
2WF can help to balance this damage, but then you're more full attack reliant. and feat intensive so not so easy to do.
Because gold spent is important at lower levels.
because AC is hard to be worthwhile unless you invest a lot.
because there are ways to reduce being hit other than AC, but it's harder to boost damage.
because AC is less important and Touch AC and Saves are more important at later levels.
These are all the reasons I can think of offhand of why 2HF is considered better.
Also you didn't include a bigger damage die for two-handed weapon which is common.
I once saw a level 1 barbarian get 48 damage. Ever played mythic? The consensus was wizard wins initiative, stuns monsters for 1 round, barbarian does billions of damage and one shots everything. Defence works to a point, but by twentieth level magic spells are more effective than a shield, and moving first and killing everything is excepted. At twentieth level you also must remember that it is the wizards show. The fighter mostly stands there as someone the wizard owes for saving his life 6-7 times when they were levels 1-5. At first level, a power attack two handed approach will win it every time. And at twentieth level AC is irrelevant anyway.
TWF is constantly less effective, for one, so arguing that the sword-and-board fighter has that advantage is more like arguing for a disadvantage. TWF assumes both parties are standing in one spot swinging at each other and making full attack actions at will; this is not how combat actually works in pathfinder.
Also, TWF lowers your attack bonus and requires severe feat investment.
Sword and board fighters might be able to beat a fighter with a two-handed weapon 1v1, maybe. Maybe. However, even if we assume that's the case, this isn't a game about 1v1 battles. This is a game of group dynamics.
Sword and board fighters can't influence the battlefield like a charging dude with a big axe can. If a sword and board guy hits a caster, it hurts. If a two-handed weapon dude hits a caster, the caster could very well die. More damage = more control over the battlefield.
Essentially, if I see a sword and board opponent in a game... I go for him last. It's stupid to attack him before taking out the other jerks, because the other jerks are dedicating both hands to attacking whereas Mr. Sword and Board (assuming he isn't using something that actually gives his shield AC to allies) is essentially sacrificing offense for personal defense. Ignoring him essentially wastes his resources.
Furthermore, you're only factoring in STR? You're ignoring all the abilities in the game that explicitly favor two-handed weapon fighters.
Let's look at Power Attack. That changes damage considerably; Power Attack is what makes the guy with a two-handed weapon king of the other types of fighters. Oh, and how about Cleave? I normally don't take Cleave, but if a sword-and-board fighter and a two-handed weapon fighter both use cleave, it'll be immensely more effective in the hands of the two-handed weapon fighter.
In your scenario, the two-handed weapon fighter is doing "only" 11 more damage. Yeah, you're right... ONLY 11 more damage PER ATTACK. That will add up.
Basically, because sword and board fighters can't really "tank" for their team, their extra defense is a worse investment than the extra damage a guy with a big axe takes. This isn't WoW; the holy trinity of tank/healer/DPS doesn't exist. There's a sort of holy trinity, but it comes down to damage/support/control. It's very different.
Fewer rolls means more consistent damage generally. More rolls means more potential to do damage, but also more chances to roll 1/misses as well, as you are typically taking penalties to hit TWFing.
Edit: Holy attack of the posts why typing lol
Oh, and let's not forget Coup de Graces. If your teammate casts Hold Person on the enemy and you Coup de Grace that opponent, you're more likely to finish that opponent off with a two-handed weapon like a Greataxe than even a Dwarven Waraxe... unless you're wielding the Dwarven Waraxe two-handed.
PF rewards offense over defense. The ultimate defense is killing your opponent before he gets a turn.
One needs no defense against a dead opponent.
There are of course ways to help make sword and board on par with 2 handers in terms of offense.
Swashbucklers, funnily enough, seem to be built around making a melee fighter that can use 1 handed weapons, yet deal 2 handed levels of damage.
Another solution would be to use TWF and shield bash. There are problems (TWF can have higher DPR, but suffer when you have to move), but it is generally found to be acceptable.
If you do not quite like the flavor of shield bashes, there are actually ways to TWF with just the 'sword' part. The new brawler class has a mechanic that works like the monk's flurry of blows, but it still counts as TWF for qualifying and using feats, and it allows you to use shields if you want. So this means that you can flurry with a single weapon for every attack, but you could decide to leave the class and take TWF feats normally.
Going Brawler 2 and then going into your main class (usually rangers and slayers are best, since they can avoid the need for high dex for TWF) can give you plenty of options. With decent martial monk weapons like the butterfly sword or 9 ringed sword, you can keep decent damage without necessarily sacrificing flavor.
Right, there ARE ways to make a sword-and-board build viable. It's not inherently wrong or anything. However, it's easier and often more effective to go with a two-handed weapon build.
|
|
Looking through my bestiary CR20+ monsters have an average of ~+38 on their attack bonuses. An SnB fighter worth his salt should be rocking an AC of about 48, that's means its a little bit under a 50/50, where as Mr. Two handed is pretty much getting smashed.
Another thing, this may not mean much but shield bash- free bullrush attempt is nice. I've seen it used to great effect when the SnB fighter was 'ignored' and they tried to get to the reach cleric :3. Talk about an aggravated bad guy haha. My favorite is wielding that heavy shield in the main hand and off handed a light weapon (sush as a gladius, or short sword, or kukri).
Run around beating people with your shield!
I see the points though.
Here's a friendly shout out to duel wielding shields! Hah.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me show you a great way to play a sword-and-board character:
Now you are a paladin that provides massive AC bonuses to your teammates, making it harder to hit them. Now playing a shield-based character really and truly works.
It's one of my new favorite paladin archetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reasons:
1. Two handed fighting comes "online" faster.
2. Two handed fighting requires less feats to work
3. Two handed fighting gives greater damage on a standard action
4. Two handed fighting requires less 'thought' into making it work
5. Sword and board requires a lot of feats to work.
6. Sword and board requires a lot of 'thought' to get the most out of it.
7. Sword and board requires a greater amount of money to work
8. Sword and board gets off the simple path of "kill it faster"
9. The benefits of sword and board can arguably be matched by the two handed fighter
10. Two handed fighting means bigger numbers means even bigger criticals
11. Sword and board requires two weapon fighting to equal out on a full round action requiring even more feats and more thought into how to get full round attacks.
I think that covers the biggest reasons.
Basically it's more complicated, takes longer, and requires more resources for what is generally perceived (not that I fully agree) as not worthwhile benefits.
One interesting way to use sword and shield is to pick up a level of Master of Many Styles Monk and exploit the special "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" provision, while grabbing a free combat style into the bargain. You then use sword and unarmed strike for your two-weapon fighting, while simply using your shield for defense. Because you have Monk unarmed strikes, your offhand is automatically a full strength, normal power attack 1d6 weapon. You can call the unarmed strikes shield bashes if you want, or sword-fist punches, or armored headbutts, or plate-boot junk-kicking... whatever feels right. Dragon Style, Boar Style, Snake Fang or even Pummeling Style for charges all work very nicely.
Looking through my bestiary CR20+ monsters have an average of ~+38 on their attack bonuses. An SnB fighter worth his salt should be rocking an AC of about 48, that's means its a little bit under a 50/50, where as Mr. Two handed is pretty much getting smashed.
Another thing, this may not mean much but shield bash- free bullrush attempt is nice. I've seen it used to great effect when the SnB fighter was 'ignored' and they tried to get to the reach cleric :3. Talk about an aggravated bad guy haha. My favorite is wielding that heavy shield in the main hand and off handed a light weapon (sush as a gladius, or short sword, or kukri).
Run around beating people with your shield!
I see the points though.
Here's a friendly shout out to duel wielding shields! Hah.
A pouncing Barbarian is going to have an attack bonus over +40 before you even take magical augmentation into account. Most of those monsters have an AC around 36. That two handed barbarian is going to obliterate them if they ever get into charge range, and have no need for any AC at all.
|
Two-handing also come with the simple advantage of only needing Power Attack, everything else that you add to two-handing is just icing on the cake. Usually it means you can get feats that cover your defenses or help with your mobility, meanwhile the one who chose sword and board has many feats to take, to even be somewhat effective and playing the keep up game with the one using a two-handed weapon.
We don't even take two-handed warrior into it, fighter archetype which is downright unfair (Double strength bonuses and increased damage of Power attack already superior damage).
Taking sword and board has its advantages early game, no doubt. Even if you take no other feats than shield focus and antagonize, you fill a role. For pure dps - sure, no argument: two handed weapon is better. As it should be - if you choose a weapon that is meant to cause more damage, you should cause more damage. But a shield fighter with antagonize can force enemies off of an ally. Then add in all those other useful abilities/ class combos - phalanx fighter with lunge or combat patrol, improved trip, etc. Or all those sheildwall/shield ally feats that fighter types seem to ignore.
If your goal is to make a sword/board fighter do more damage than a twohander, then I'd say something was wrong if you succeeded. But if your argument is that sword/board is just as viable, then I'd say yes, particularly if he's fulfilling a different role.
On the rare occasion I play and not GM, If I'm not playing a magus or an investigator, I like to take an oracle or cleric or (still haven't tried it myself) a phalnx fighter/oracle multiclass, slap heavy armor on him, antagonize, and reach spells, and tower shield prof. Now the enemy *has* to come at the guy with ridiculous armor and defense who stands in the middle of the fight. At higher levels, even if they flank, they can't hurt him (buffs+highAC+panic heals = invincibility)
Or, they can ignore you, while you heal/make invincible everyone else.
Edit: oh, also, your allies can use you as cover for rangey stuff. lol. level 3 spell, resist element, very handy. Level 2 spell: Protection from arrows: Giggles. Level 1 spell, Compel hostility, priceless
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it comes from my love of history. SnB is almost always treated as purely defensive build, but in history the SnB style was usually much more effect than two handing a weapon. (Unless it was a pike/halberd/reach weapon) even then half those weapons became useless if not in tight clusters.
That said I'm liking some of the other ideas here. Perhaps I'll make a thread on making SnB fighters (barbs/paladins/etc), viable.
Oh, can a giant fighter barbarian with the exotic wep. Feat wield a large bastars sword one handed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because there's a lot of ways to die. A shield blocks one of them. Killing the other guy faster blocks all of them.
I guess it comes from my love of history. SnB is almost always treated as purely defensive build, but in history the SnB style was usually much more effect than two handing a weapon. (Unless it was a pike/halberd/reach weapon) even then half those weapons became useless if not in tight clusters.
Depends on the situation, but yes: shields change EVERYTHING in a real medieval combat setting. Pathfinder, though, doesn't reflect that at all, and the best way to fight is typically with a two-handed weapon in this game.
Tabletop and video games rarely, if ever, are accurate simulations of real-world combat.
Also, if anyone starts saying "Mount and Blade" I will slap you with my brain.
I guess it comes from my love of history. SnB is almost always treated as purely defensive build, but in history the SnB style was usually much more effect than two handing a weapon.
Historically, shield use declined proportionally to the effectiveness of armor and the strength and skill of the warrior. By the time the 100 years' war was in full swing and effective plate armor was common for the elite, the preferred weapon was the pollaxe. Nobody was going to weigh themselves down and tie up one hand when they already had solid defense from head to toe. Even in earlier periods, two-handers were often used by elites - just wiki 'dane axe'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it comes from my love of history. SnB is almost always treated as purely defensive build, but in history the SnB style was usually much more effect than two handing a weapon. (Unless it was a pike/halberd/reach weapon) even then half those weapons became useless if not in tight clusters.
That said I'm liking some of the other ideas here. Perhaps I'll make a thread on making SnB fighters (barbs/paladins/etc), viable.
Oh, can a giant fighter barbarian with the exotic wep. Feat wield a large bastars sword one handed?
Well, this game, and its ancestors, are built around later medieval periods, when the advance of metallurgy made strong plate armors that removed a lot of the desperate need for shields.
And I would not underestimate reach weapons. Having reach is a fantastic advantage. There is a reason why such weapons were used by all cultures throughout the use of melee combat until shortly before modern times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...
...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.
|
|
I guess it comes from my love of history. SnB is almost always treated as purely defensive build, but in history the SnB style was usually much more effect than two handing a weapon.Historically, shield use declined proportionally to the effectiveness of armor and the strength and skill of the warrior. By the time the 100 years' war was in full swing and effective plate armor was common for the elite, the preferred weapon was the pollaxe. Nobody was going to weigh themselves down and tie up one hand when they already had solid defense from head to toe. Even in earlier periods, two-handers were often used by elites - just wiki 'dane axe'.
.
I disagree. Sure a lot of the French nobles didn't use a shield after full plate. That doesn't mean it was unused. Or even sub optimal. I dare say that if they had brought shields to Agincourt it would have turned out a tad differently.
You know the best way to best a Knight in full plate? A blunt object that dents armor and knocks them down. A shield is perfect for that. Although one of the biggest reasons they didn't take a shield was partly due to the armor being limiting enough as to make a shield extremely cumbersome to use.
But as pointed out. PF is not a medieval war game. Its much more in line with an MMO without tanking mechanics. (Thank God)
To point out, Spartans would use their shield for more things far more than their blade or spear. (Sure, things like the movie 300 are a bit over the top) but a Spartans shield was as much a deadly weapon if not more so than his other weapons.
|
|
I guess it comes from my love of history. SnB is almost always treated as purely defensive build, but in history the SnB style was usually much more effect than two handing a weapon. (Unless it was a pike/halberd/reach weapon) even then half those weapons became useless if not in tight clusters.
That said I'm liking some of the other ideas here. Perhaps I'll make a thread on making SnB fighters (barbs/paladins/etc), viable.
Oh, can a giant fighter barbarian with the exotic wep. Feat wield a large bastars sword one handed?
Well, this game, and its ancestors, are built around later medieval periods, when the advance of metallurgy made strong plate armors that removed a lot of the desperate need for shields.
And I would not underestimate reach weapons. Having reach is a fantastic advantage. There is a reason why such weapons were used by all cultures throughout the use of melee combat until shortly before modern times.
As said, many reach weapons are extremely effective in infantry formations. (Pikes, halberds) but many of them are much less effective when used alone. That said, a fighter using a reach weapon almost always wins vs a fighter using a two handed axe/sword.theirs a reasons katana masters have never beaten naginata masters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that a shield gives a passive and rater boring bonus. Just like is is silly that a sword in each hand double your number of attacks. SaB is boring because it wasted a hand for a static bonus.
And if you use TWF with it is have the problems of TWF. With a ton of feats TWF with a shield can be good and well worth it but with the same feats the THF guy can be a professional archer wile doing at least the same damage in melee.
That said, a fighter using a reach weapon almost always wins vs a fighter using a two handed axe/sword.theirs a reasons katana masters have never beaten naginata masters.
I'm assuming you mean in a historical, not Pathfinder, context. Because if not Step Up says hi.
In regards to the sword n board versus two hander conflict, I tend to find myself compromising and just two handing a shield. Improved Shield Bash is only one more feat needed on top of Power Attack. I'd go so far as to consider it the "one true melee style" for a Ranger/Slayer due to being able to get Shield Master at level 6.
No dice. You don't get buckler AC any round you use a weapon in your off-hand or use it to cast somatic spell components.Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...
...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.
^ This.
In 3.5 there was a feat called "Improved Buckler Defense." This does not exist in Pathfinder.
If it did... Well, then there'd be even fewer reasons to go sword-and-board.
EDIT: Though I believe there's a Fighter archetype that gets this late in the game?
|
|
That said, a fighter using a reach weapon almost always wins vs a fighter using a two handed axe/sword.theirs a reasons katana masters have never beaten naginata masters.I'm assuming you mean in a historical, not Pathfinder, context. Because if not Step Up says hi.
In regards to the sword n board versus two hander conflict, I tend to find myself compromising and just two handing a shield. Improved Shield Bash is only one more feat needed on top of Power Attack. I'd go so far as to consider it the "one true melee style" for a Ranger/Slayer due to being able to get Shield Master at level 6.
Hey, Spartans and captain america make it work!
Stat consolidation, Feat tax, and damage mostly.
Remember, that Fighter isn't starting off with 30 Str and 20 Dex.
He's starting off with on the one hand, 18 Str 14 Dex (+4 to-hit, +9 damage, well within one shot kill range for many CR 1 foes), while still rocking something like 17 AC (5 Scale Mail, 2 Dex).
Meanwhile the Sword/Shield user is starting off with something like 16 Str and 15 Dex at a minimum unless he wants to dump a stat, so +4 to-hit, +3 damage. Or at best, +4 to-hit and +5 damage with 18 Str and Power Attack. With half the damage dice on his weapon to boot. NOT within OHKO range, and only a point or two of AC ahead when 17 is already damn near impervious.
Now, it evens out a bit around level 7 or so, when TWFing and Shield Slam come into play, and at level 10 the Sword and Board build probably pulls ahead with Shield Master, but that's in the long haul and it's not SIGNIFICANTLY better, only roughly equivalent. Higher AC, less consistent damage, higher potential damage.
Don't get me wrong, I love Sword and Board builds, but they're not the be-all, end-all of combat (unless you're a Ranger or Slayer. Combat Style...mmmmmmmmm).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A two-hander gets 50% more offense.
A shield-user doesn't get 50% more defense.
|
|
See I've never worried with the 15 dex at level 1. Usually I'd get the 18(or, prefrably 19) str, 14 dex/14con going. And either two hand or SnB as I feel like. After all, levels 1-3 are meh. Though when overrun with goblins... SnB feels much better hue. I don't ever worry about dex requirments until 7-9 when the actual build comes online, I use the early feats for other things.
I've always favored terms a GM and friend of mine used to first explain it to me. High level Pathfinder (and 3.5, and a lot of systems honestly) is playing rocket tag. There's no really defense aside form being the first one to blow the other guy to whatever afterlife his alignment gets sent to. It takes exponentially more effort to even try to play defensively and it still usually doesn't work, so why bother?
Techinally they do. A +5 full plate is 14 AC. A +5 shield is 6-7 ac.A two-hander gets 50% more offense.
A shield-user doesn't get 50% more defense.
And a +5 shield fully decked out with feats is going to give at least two points more than that to AC from shield focus and greater shield focus. So more likely +8~9 compared to the shield spells +4 (and the shield spell is going to be rather awkward to get since it's a personal spell... not impossible but definitely awkward), possibly also addressing reflex saves (meh) blocking rays (which is nice), missile weapons (meh), and having ways to add to touch AC as well (also nice).
However again, very feat intensive.
It is nice however being able to help cover your battle buddy with your shield though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a historical perspective, the longsword and later the greatsword were extremely effective against pikes. Elite soldiers called doppelsoldners were German landsknecths who specialized in this service. Swords are also strong against heavily armored foes. You can open someone like a tin can with the pointy end, or just bash them with the hilt.
Shields have always been popular, but the extent to which they became a huge part of medieval European combat has a lot to do with the specifics of castle combat. In Japan, where the military situation was different, shields were used but were not common parts of the arsenal. The main purpose of a shield is to stop the first few blows, and also to fend off arrows, so they are strongly associated with large field actions, and actions against opponents with superior elevation using arrows (i.e. castles). In hand to hand combat, shields tended to turn to junk pretty fast, so soldiers were often trained to use the boss (handle and center) of the shield as a bashing weapon once the shield was demolished.
All of this to say there are plenty of arguments for and against the widespread use of shields in a fantasy setting. But unquestionably, two-handed weapons enjoyed a long dominance starting from the period of time when high qualify steel could be produced. By the beginning of the era of firearms, swords were larger and more powerful than they ever had been. The Spanish espandon and the German zweihander, both late era weapons, were larger than just about any typical medieval sword, excepting some of the Scottish claymores.
Not only is a two-handed style effective in game, this dominance reflects the high position it held historically. A knight wielding a greatsword is absolutely a reasonable archetype to base your character from.
no-one is mentioning Damage Reduction, more gets through with less, stronger attacks.
I've always favored terms a GM and friend of mine used to first explain it to me. High level Pathfinder (and 3.5, and a lot of systems honestly) is playing rocket tag. There's no really defense aside form being the first one to blow the other guy to whatever afterlife his alignment gets sent to. It takes exponentially more effort to even try to play defensively and it still usually doesn't work, so why bother?
There ARE ways. Note that there definitely are ways.
I played an Aid Another halfling build and that was extremely useful, but the problem is that character is USELESS alone. In a party, though, my support abilities (via Bodyguard and Swift Aid and Blundering Defense and such) gave the party so much AC and attack that the enemy simply couldn't hurt the party most of the time.
A sword-and-board fighter is typically not good because the typical sword-and-board fighter only gives defense to numero uno. That's assuming the sword-and-board fighter somehow manages to have a high enough AC to make up for the loss of damage he or she contributes to the battle.
Techinally they do. A +5 full plate is 14 AC. A +5 shield is 6-7 ac.A two-hander gets 50% more offense.
A shield-user doesn't get 50% more defense.
That doesn't include the base 10 AC, dexterity, bonuses from various magical items that give natural armor or deflection, etc.
There are a lot of sources of AC that are not shields. But depending on your class, there are only a couple of things that add to your damage that are not affected by 2 handing (barbarians certainly do not see very many of those other than basic enhancement)
You know the best way to best a Knight in full plate? A blunt object that dents armor and knocks them down. A shield is perfect for that.
A two-handed pollaxe with a lancepoint, hammer/axehead and spike/hook is perfect for that. A shield is a clumsy and inefficient weapon compared to anything that has proper weight and leverage. Getting butted by a Greek hoplite's shield may be nasty, but it's not nearly as lethal or efficient as a thrust from a leaf-headed spear.
As far as Agincourt went, the two big problems for the main body of French men-at-arms charging the English line on foot through the mud were exhaustion, and catching arrows in weak points like limbs or visors. Shields, which may have been used by the forward ranks, make the first problem worse and don't do all that much to solve the second. At the point that they reach a line of organized knights trained to trip and hook as well as stab and bash with large two-handed weapons, shields aren't looking too useful at all. Even assuming you block a full-on swing from a pollaxe, you're just begging to get your arm and/or shield broken and/or hooked.
I'm not saying the shield wasn't very effective for many things, just that popular history and historical reenactment have really over-sold them.
A sword-and-board fighter is typically not good because the typical sword-and-board fighter only gives defense to numero uno. That's assuming the sword-and-board fighter somehow manages to have a high enough AC to make up for the loss of damage he or she contributes to the battle.
You're also concentrating on a niche that can be advantageously filled by summoned creatures.
Now, with a fighter, there is no reason you can't use sword and board, but simply switch to two-handing for damage dealing. A longsword is a perfectly respectable weapon in two hands. So, you march up to the Huge monster and trade a few blows while your party gets in position, then you shuck your shield and power into him with two hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always favored terms a GM and friend of mine used to first explain it to me. High level Pathfinder (and 3.5, and a lot of systems honestly) is playing rocket tag. There's no really defense aside form being the first one to blow the other guy to whatever afterlife his alignment gets sent to. It takes exponentially more effort to even try to play defensively and it still usually doesn't work, so why bother?There ARE ways. Note that there definitely are ways.
I played an Aid Another halfling build and that was extremely useful, but the problem is that character is USELESS alone. In a party, though, my support abilities (via Bodyguard and Swift Aid and Blundering Defense and such) gave the party so much AC and attack that the enemy simply couldn't hurt the party most of the time.
A sword-and-board fighter is typically not good because the typical sword-and-board fighter only gives defense to numero uno. That's assuming the sword-and-board fighter somehow manages to have a high enough AC to make up for the loss of damage he or she contributes to the battle.
Honestly AC gets a bum wrap it doesn't deserve. It's really not that hard to have a good AC (meaning 75%+ block rate so to speak) especially with a shield.
And with a lot of the feats available now you can share your shields defense with your battle buddies. Of course this requires still more feats.
Add in the battle field control abilities that can be had for free use with a shield (again at the cost of feats) you can get a lot of mileage out of shield usage.
The biggest issue is how few classes can afford all the feats it takes and the stat issues involved.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A two-hander gets 50% more offense.
A shield-user doesn't get 50% more defense.
They get +10% evasion baseline, which is pretty sexy when your evasion is already roughly 75%. Over the course of the game, their shield grants an additional +25% evasion for a total of +30% evasion. This is not to be underestimated.
I use shields frequently on my martials. At low levels, the extra damage from 2 handing is overkill (when your average enemy has 5HP and you swing for 1d8+4, who cares if you're dealing 2d6+9?), while survival at that level is much harder (you have few HPs so taking less hits is a good thing, and having less auto-hits confirm is a better thing).
At high levels the % of bonus damage that is derived from the +50% StrMod for 2handing is very slim since most of your bonus damage is coming from non-strength sources (enhancement bonuses, class features, etc) and you're getting far more damage out by landing multiple successive attacks than power attack is giving you (PA with a 2 hander at +20 BAB is a whopping +18 damage, but at a -6 to hit, when you're swinging at +25-35 damage already, being able to reliably land your iteratives is a good thing).
Shields are a good survival tool at low levels and damn near a godsend at high levels where they keep your AC relevant against other martial-oriented foes (it's sure isn't your d10 HD that's keeping you moving at this level since it's only 20 HP more than a wizard). >_>
Shields also have the side benefit of giving you an additional "slot" in the form of weapon/armor enhancements on your shield, since it can be enhanced as both a weapon and shield independently. The fact that they can be formidable weapons in their own right is icing on the cake.