I do not see the point of shields for fighters and paladins

[Colette Brunel]

I do not see the point of shields for fighters and paladins.

For bards, clerics, and druids? Certainly, if they have cast a two-action spell and they do not need to move, raising a shield seems like a decent idea, and the shield can potentially absorb a nasty hit.

For fighters? Yes, they have some seemingly useful shield feats, but a fighter would do well to conserve their reactions for Attack of Opportunity. Furthermore, a fighter is sacrificing a strong amount of their offense by wielding anything other than a two-handed weapon, or potentially two weapons for Double Slice.

For paladins? Setting aside the Lay on Hands and Warding Touch fiasco that makes using Lay on Hands such a hassle for paladins and nigh-impossible for shield-bearing paladins, it seems to me like a paladin is best-off with a reach weapon, or else Retributive Strike will have too small a coverage area.

I do not think the shield proficiency increases at later levels do all that much to really make shields appealing for fighters and paladins. What am I missing?

[N-Sphere]

The point is to provide more than one path to victory.

The player of the shield user needs to weigh the odds that they'll hit with their third attack, that they'll even get a chance for an opportunity attack, against the odds that they'll get attacked and the value of shunting the damage away from consuming healing and resonance resources.

Now, the action economy for hybrid martial-caster classes like the paladin reads like a soup sandwich on paper, and enough people have played 4E fighters to know how god awful non-reach retaliation strikes are in practice if the GM isn't going to take the bait. This one doesn't even punish 5 foot steps to get out of retaliation range either.

They obviously need to change things so Paladins don't feel like they've got a worthless class feature if they don't double down on reach, and that they can actually use their spells if they don't double down on using a weapon with the 1+ handed category that isn't making them run bookkeeping on the exact position of their hands round to round and taxing the hell out of their actions every time they adjust their grip.

[Bobson]

Shields are for fighters who want to help the rest of the party, rather than just do a ton of damage themselves. Aggressive Shield can make your attacker flat-footed, helping the rogue. Shield Warden will keep your friends from being hit, which is especially good if it prevents a spellcaster's spell from being disrupted. And so on. Plus, negating damage means less healing is needed, which leads to a longer day or more healing for other party members.

There's not great choices for a shield at every level, admittedly, but I'm moderately sure that if you put a boss or spikes on your shield, it counts as a second weapon for things like Double Slice, so you're not really missing out.

[Voss]

Colette Brunel wrote:

I do not see the point of shields for fighters and paladins.

For bards, clerics, and druids? Certainly, if they have cast a two-action spell and they do not need to move, raising a shield seems like a decent idea, and the shield can potentially absorb a nasty hit.

For fighters? Yes, they have some seemingly useful shield feats, but a fighter would do well to conserve their reactions for Attack of Opportunity. Furthermore, a fighter is sacrificing a strong amount of their offense by wielding anything other than a two-handed weapon, or potentially two weapons for Double Slice.

For paladins? Setting aside the Lay on Hands and Warding Touch fiasco that makes using Lay on Hands such a hassle for paladins and nigh-impossible for shield-bearing paladins, it seems to me like a paladin is best-off with a reach weapon, or else Retributive Strike will have too small a coverage area.

I do not think the shield proficiency increases at later levels do all that much to really make shields appealing for fighters and paladins. What am I missing?

Hardness increases later with better gear (special materials, item quality, magical. Also, paladins make shields even more ridiculous with righteous ally, increasing both hardness and the number of dents they can take.

The sturdy shield (expert light steel) is a 4th level item, and has a hardness 8 and an extra dent. A 4th level paladin gives that shield 4 total Dents before it's broken, and it soaks up to 10 damage per block. That's the low end of metal shields. At high end, they're blocking 20+ damage, and can keep that up for multiple rounds.

Keep in mind they can also block damage to allies (Shield Warden, which doesn't require they be adjacent to the attacker), and there are a couple other things mixed in there as well.

--
As for fighters, AoO vs shield block reaction isn't a dilemma that will come up much. They're either moving past or attacking you. Enemies are unlikely to do both.

[Lyricanna]

Evening Colette, Pathfinder community. Since Colette and I have basically been debating this topic for a while on /tg/ I figured I would chime in over here some of what we were discussing.

Basically, the way I see a classic sword-and-board fighter in 2e is as a two-weapon fighter who is sacrificing damage in exchange for better survivability for themselves and potentially their party. There honestly does not seem to be any penalty to using Double Slice or a second agile strike with a light shield and using the third action to raise the shield. Thus a fighter is basically left with the ability to strike the enemy if they try to move away with their AoO or block the attack should they stay and attack.

Now there is the possibility of the opponent striking then retreating, but both the AoO fighter and the Shield Block fighter will have to spend an action moving afterward, and I am skeptical at believing that negating an attack is of lesser worth than the damage dealt from an AoO.