Beginner help. Playing without feats? DM said no feats.

[djreynolds]

Ladies and gentlemen. Question? We are playing without feats, I'm okay with it since we are either new or in my case knocking off 20years of rust. I'm unsure of his multiclassing decision.

I realize it seems simple. But how do we get the most out of our characters? As a fighter you grab 20 in your attack stat. Do I take con to 20? Do I raise that wisdom?

Especially for our casters, this seems difficult answer. What to do after max casting stat. Do you go for balance? Raise hp and con saves? Raise attack stat, which maybe dex?

Expert advice gladly accepted.

[MrStabby]

Ladies and gentlemen. Question? We are playing without feats, I'm okay with it since we are either new or in my case knocking off 20years of rust. I'm unsure of his multiclassing decision.

I realize it seems simple. But how do we get the most out of our characters? As a fighter you grab 20 in your attack stat. Do I take con to 20? Do I raise that wisdom?

Especially for our casters, this seems difficult answer. What to do after max casting stat. Do you go for balance? Raise hp and con saves? Raise attack stat, which maybe dex?

Expert advice gladly accepted.

If he is worried about feats and new players then he might consider a loser rule - no feats before level 6 say. This lets new players get used to the game, how it works and what kind of abilities they enjoy before specialising. Fighters in particular have a hard time as not only do feats restrict what they can do with ASIs but also their class features. Some fighters only get fun new abilities through feats. Possibly he may also exempt fighters (and the rogue's) extra ASI from the no feat rule?

Other than this... yes just max stats. For each class consider the importance in the players's handbook (so if X should be highest stat followed by y then z, max X then Y then Z).

By lowering the value of ASIs he is pushing people slightly more towards multiclassing - an area probably more full of traps for new players than feats.

[KorvinStarmast]

We began without feats, per our DM's guidance, and the game works just fine. We have much fun. I think only one of our characters chose a feat at level 4 rather than ASI. I have been asked/advised to take "war caster" when my cleric gets to 8 as our team would prefer that I not lose concentration as often during a fight. (It is so distracting, with all of those arrows and spells and spears to the face ... )

[EvanescentHero]

As a fighter, bump your Strength (or Dex) to 20, and your Constitution. If you're an eldritch knight, you'll want to max your Intelligence as well. For out of combat versatility, bumping your mental stats isn't a bad idea. But...despite feats being optional this edition, the fighter was clearly balanced around getting them, considering how many chances they have to get them and how little they have to do with those ASIs when feats aren't allowed. I'd talk to your DM, and if he's adamant about that, play a different class. But for what it's worth, my group is half new players, and they have no trouble with feats.

[SharkForce]

honestly, my advice is that you don't play a fighter at all. they're pretty feat-reliant for increased damage early on. barbarians can be too (you can go berserker and not lose as much damage when you're frenzied, but that has some pretty nasty drawbacks). paladins also rely somewhat on feats for damage, but bring enough other stuff to the party that you won't notice the missing damage so much. rogues and monks should be fine (feats are nice, but not required to do nearly maximum damage), rangers will be not particularly worse off than normal, and casters will be mostly not affected very much unless they wanted to be a gish (oh, it'll be a bit disappointing not having resilient:con or warcaster, but it really isn't a huge deal).

one of the unfortunate design flaws of 5e is that in order to accomplish their most basic function at maximum capacity, some characters require feats while others do not. feats may be labeled as optional, but they did a lousy job making that true.

for casters, i would recommend casting stat > con > dex, generally speaking. for a caster, your attack stat is basically your casting stat. you're raising dex for AC (depending on armour), initiative, and skills.

[PoeticDwarf]

Ladies and gentlemen. Question? We are playing without feats, I'm okay with it since we are either new or in my case knocking off 20years of rust. I'm unsure of his multiclassing decision.

I realize it seems simple. But how do we get the most out of our characters? As a fighter you grab 20 in your attack stat. Do I take con to 20? Do I raise that wisdom?

Especially for our casters, this seems difficult answer. What to do after max casting stat. Do you go for balance? Raise hp and con saves? Raise attack stat, which maybe dex?

Expert advice gladly accepted.

For casters: Raise the CON and the DEX, the CON is often more important but not so important that you have to go for 18CON 12DEX. 16CON 14DEX if better in many ways.
If you are a fighter with a STR of 20. Raise your CON to 18, so you can get a DEX of 14 or maybe 16.
If you are a fighter with a DEX of 20. Raise your CON to 18, and increase something for roleplaying (social fighter, wise fighter, intelligent fighter) or just go for the CON of 20, be a survivior and you're almost as tanky as the barbarian, (until he gets his CON to 24)

[Mechaviking]

If there are no feats I suggest playing a spellcasting class oh and I don´t recommend human.

[djreynolds]

Great advice. Unfortunately I'm a champion and had thread about shield master and multiclassing to rogue. But alas. No feats.

You are all correct about fighter, especially champion, I just role and attack and move in front of the enemy and try to shove. I wish now I took protector because it would something else to do. But my kid is playing and thoroughly enjoying her rogue. Our eldritch knight, monk, warlock ( especially), and even our beast master have more to do. I just roll, and never crit. Once I crit and killed a goblin, I think my strength bonus alone would've killed him.

The next game its feats and battlemaster and if not anything but the champion with history skill and a useless intimidation because of my 8 in charisma.

But as a dwarf and my cunning tongue and bad Scottish accent, I'm at least amusing with my one liners. I my have to pay royalties to Peter Jackson though.

As always thanks and I'll remember to consult the experts first.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The best class to learn 5e with is actually the cleric. Go with one that allows you to Str or Dex melee + shield. Run around and learn the martial rules and save your Spells for healing (healing isn't the best option but isn't horrible with Healing Word). As you do this learn your magic rules.

So when you are comfortable with the spell rules you can mix in your melee with magic.

You get to pick new Spells each day so you can experiment with different combos.

Remember as a base rule your carrying capacity is Strength Score X 30. So if you go Dex cleric you can still carry a shield and other things.

Use the Help Action if you find yourself up against a high AC enemy. People will love you.

Sacred Flame is a Dex Save, you only roll damage if the target fails. With the right domain you get Wis Mod + damage to sacred flame.

A Strength based life cleric with heavy Armor + mace + shield doesn't do too bad. I would say to go as a Light Cleric (str/wis/con build) as you get to blast, support, and melee to whatever degree you want.

[Easy_Lee]

What choices are you still able to make? If you already have a race, class, and archetype selected, then the best advice I can offer is to raise your main stats, then dexterity.

If you're a Champion, things could be worse. Remarkable athlete can create lots of good situations for you if you're creative in its use and your DM isn't an ass. For example, use a strength check to break the door, or the lock, or through a wall, or throw someone fifteen feet and off a cliff. Use a dexterity check to steal someone's weapon when he isn't paying attention, or prevent him from drawing it. Use constitution checks to win drinking contests or, better, sniff around for clues you can smell (perception is usually sight, and it could be argued that constitution controls one's general healthiness / genetics and thus sense of smell). Be creative and you should be fine.

Given the choice, in a featless game I would play a wizard or a monk.

[ThermalSlapShot]

What choices are you still able to make? If you already have a race, class, and archetype selected, then the best advice I can offer is to raise your main stats, then dexterity.

If you're a Champion, things could be worse. Remarkable athlete can create lots of good situations for you if you're creative in its use and your DM isn't an ass. For example, use a strength check to break the door, or the lock, or through a wall, or throw someone fifteen feet and off a cliff. Use a dexterity check to steal someone's weapon when he isn't paying attention, or prevent him from drawing it. Use constitution checks to win drinking contests or, better, sniff around for clues you can smell (perception is usually sight, and it could be argued that constitution controls one's general healthiness / genetics and thus sense of smell). Be creative and you should be fine.

Given the choice, in a featless game I would play a wizard or a monk.

I've found that a lot of DMs assume that anything you can do with a Strength check can be done with Athletics. Not exactly wrong, as an athletic man should be damn good with strength, but it makes remarkable athlete useless. Also a lot of con and dex checks get rolled up into saves/skills even if they normally wouldn't.

Depending on the DM remarkable athlete is decent to down right horrid.

[Easy_Lee]

I've found that a lot of DMs assume that anything you can do with a Strength check can be done with Athletics. Not exactly wrong, as an athletic man should be damn good with strength, but it makes remarkable athlete useless. Also a lot of con and dex checks get rolled up into saves/skills even if they normally wouldn't.

Depending on the DM remarkable athlete is decent to down right horrid.

There are a few checks which have no skill associated, such as the check to break a chain (see the PHB). That said, yes it's DM dependent. However, remarkable athlete at a minimum grants half proficiency in all strength and dexterity skills, plus the other bonuses, so it's not terrible.

[ThermalSlapShot]

There are a few checks which have no skill associated, such as the check to break a chain (see the PHB). That said, yes it's DM dependent. However, remarkable athlete at a minimum grants half proficiency in all strength and dexterity skills, plus the other bonuses, so it's not terrible.

Not terrible but not good either. I mean, it give syou something, but it wouldn't have been broken to just give them expertise (strength and dexterity checks that aren't skills) or whatever.
For being remarkable, remarkable athlete is very forgettable.

[Easy_Lee]

Not terrible but not good either. I mean, it give syou something, but it wouldn't have been broken to just give them expertise (strength and dexterity checks that aren't skills) or whatever.
For being remarkable, remarkable athlete is very forgettable.

I agree, but this falls under the off-topic and unrelated heading of martial vs caster abilities. In comparison to caster abilities, which grant the ability to do a thing every time, martial abilities grant the ability to do something you could already do a little more reliably. RA fits the bill. I could Homebrew it to be more consistently useful while fitting the same fluff, but that would be out of the scope of this thread.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I agree, but this falls under the off-topic and unrelated heading of martial vs caster abilities. In comparison to caster abilities, which grant the ability to do a thing every time, martial abilities grant the ability to do something you could already do a little more reliably. RA fits the bill. I could Homebrew it to be more consistently useful while fitting the same fluff, but that would be out of the scope of this thread.

I'm not even thinking of martal versus caster. Just new martial player gaining an ability that...

A: May never use.
B: When used isn't worth a class feature.
C: Doesn't live up to the fluff.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not even thinking of martal versus caster. Just new martial player gaining an ability that...

A: May never use.
B: When used isn't worth a class feature.
C: Doesn't live up to the fluff.

The same can be said of all skills, though. A bard may never use Jack of all Trades.

[KorvinStarmast]

About the Champion: Every Joe Montana needs a good offensive line in front of him.

For those demanding "equality" on character balance, please check out a band called Rush and a song called Trees.

[Safety Sword]

About the Champion: Every Joe Montana needs a good offensive line in front of him.

For those demanding "equality" on character balance, please check out a band called Rush and a song called Trees.

Balance is much more important across a party rather than between it. You need to cover all of the bases to be an effective party.

No character should be trying to "win" D&D by themselves.

[ThermalSlapShot]

About the Champion: Every Joe Montana needs a good offensive line in front of him.

For those demanding "equality" on character balance, please check out a band called Rush and a song called Trees.

No thank you. 😷

And it isn't just about equality between the character classes but equality between the character classes and the setting.

The setting is not geared to handle casters.

Which is one of the reasons why 3.5 E6 was made. Funny enough using that same tactic it helps balance out 5e too. Not just between the classes but between the PCs and the setting.

[Icewraith]

Not terrible but not good either. I mean, it give syou something, but it wouldn't have been broken to just give them expertise (strength and dexterity checks that aren't skills) or whatever.
For being remarkable, remarkable athlete is very forgettable.

Initiative is a Dex check, so Remarkable Athlete applies. It's a bigger deal in a featless game where alert isn't an option. You'll use it at the start of every combat.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Initiative is a Dex check, so Remarkable Athlete applies. It's a bigger deal in a featless game where alert isn't an option. You'll use it at the start of every combat.

Eh, initiative isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Most enemies don't have a huge dex and if you are a dex based fighter you are already grabbing a +5. That +3 (at max, starts at +1 and scales slowly to +3) isn't a big deal. You get the full +3 once you hit Prof Bonus +6 in later levels where you going first won't make a huge difference. The Fighter doesn't have the features in later levels to put that initiative to good use.

[Once a Fool]

I don't really agree with the majority's claim that the fighter needs feats to be competitive. All a featless game does is put a cap on the amount such a character can be optimized. Anything in excess of that must instead be invested in adding breadth to the character.

Playing a featless game does cut out some of the upper-end damage potential (and some nifty tricks), but the fighter that's left is more flexible--and saves better, as well (in general--resilience changes that equation, of course). In 5e, there's no such thing as a useless stat.

In a featless game, for instance, having a high STR, DEX, and CON is actually a good combination for a fighter (for a barbarian, as well) that potentially provides more ability check options, better saves, and good initiative, without taking anything away that a (featless) fighter with only high STR and CON or high DEX and CON would have. Other than, of course, higher mental stats.

Sure, there are overlaps where weaponry and AC are concerned, but flexibility is gained there, to. Such a character gets to choose from more options--and is never hindered from the lack of them.

[SharkForce]

if the game is balanced with feats, then it is not balanced without feats. if it is balanced without feats, it is not balanced with feats.

this is true because, quite simply, feats increase damage, but not really any other primary function of a character. there are no feats to enhance your crowd control, no feats to enhance your ability to buff things, no feats to improve your skills, no feats to improve your spells (except for damage-dealing spells).

so classes that have dealing damage as their primary function cannot be equal in both cases. and no, being slightly better in a secondary or tertiary function (not that making saving throws is particularly a primary function of any class) is not the same as being substantially more effective in your primary function.

[ThermalSlapShot]

if the game is balanced with feats, then it is not balanced without feats. if it is balanced without feats, it is not balanced with feats.

this is true because, quite simply, feats increase damage, but not really any other primary function of a character. there are no feats to enhance your crowd control, no feats to enhance your ability to buff things, no feats to improve your skills, no feats to improve your spells (except for damage-dealing spells).

so classes that have dealing damage as their primary function cannot be equal in both cases. and no, being slightly better in a secondary or tertiary function (not that making saving throws is particularly a primary function of any class) is not the same as being substantially more effective in your primary function.

Give martial characters a class feature called "Reactionary" and crowd control becomes a thing again. This goes a long way to making a more than "move and hit" martial.

[Once a Fool]

if the game is balanced with feats, then it is not balanced without feats. if it is balanced without feats, it is not balanced with feats.

this is true because, quite simply, feats increase damage, but not really any other primary function of a character. there are no feats to enhance your crowd control, no feats to enhance your ability to buff things, no feats to improve your skills, no feats to improve your spells (except for damage-dealing spells).

so classes that have dealing damage as their primary function cannot be equal in both cases. and no, being slightly better in a secondary or tertiary function (not that making saving throws is particularly a primary function of any class) is not the same as being substantially more effective in your primary function.

5e leaves plenty of room for unoptimized characters to be effective. Consequently, playing without feats works just fine--unless optimization is the only way for you to have fun.

[Giant2005]

Give martial characters a class feature called "Reactionary" and crowd control becomes a thing again. This goes a long way to making a more than "move and hit" martial.

The Marilith's ability "Reactive" does exactly what you want. Notably, the Monster Creation rules in the DMG include that as an ability that you can include on a Monster without it affecting the Monster's CR in the slightest - if it can be added to Monsters without it being considered notable enough to make them stronger, then you should be able to transplant that same ability onto characters without it being considered notable enough to make them stronger.

[Battlebooze]

The same can be said of all skills, though. A bard may never use Jack of all Trades.

A Bard will invariably get some use out of Jack of all Trades, since it increases their initiative.

[SharkForce]

5e leaves plenty of room for unoptimized characters to be effective. Consequently, playing without feats works just fine--unless optimization is the only way for you to have fun.

everyone should have equal opportunity to be effective, regardless of what kind of character they would like to play. you should not be punished for your decision to be a fighter with reduced effectiveness, whether it is a large decrease in effectiveness or a small decrease in effectiveness.

[ThermalSlapShot]

The Marilith's ability "Reactive" does exactly what you want. Notably, the Monster Creation rules in the DMG include that as an ability that you can include on a Monster without it affecting the Monster's CR in the slightest - if it can be added to Monsters without it being considered notable enough to make them stronger, then you should be able to transplant that same ability onto characters without it being considered notable enough to make them stronger.

Yup, I just forgot which monster it was.

My homebrew Fighter gains it at level 7, which is where the game starts picking up steam.

OAs are quite weak at higher levels so allowing more OAs should help out even if they are used for just damage.

[Malifice]

honestly, my advice is that you don't play a fighter at all. they're pretty feat-reliant for increased damage early on. barbarians can be too (you can go berserker and not lose as much damage when you're frenzied, but that has some pretty nasty drawbacks). paladins also rely somewhat on feats for damage, but bring enough other stuff to the party that you won't notice the missing damage so much. rogues and monks should be fine (feats are nice, but not required to do nearly maximum damage), rangers will be not particularly worse off than normal, and casters will be mostly not affected very much unless they wanted to be a gish (oh, it'll be a bit disappointing not having resilient:con or warcaster, but it really isn't a huge deal).

one of the unfortunate design flaws of 5e is that in order to accomplish their most basic function at maximum capacity, some characters require feats while others do not. feats may be labeled as optional, but they did a lousy job making that true.


Not sure I entrely agree with that.

Fighters do make the best use of feats (and get the most from their inclusion) but in a feat-less game, they still get the advantage of having higher stats than the rest of the PC's (which in bounded accuracy is pretty valuable).

A Human Fighter 20 or Barbarian 20 has some pretty impressive stats across the board.

[Slipperychicken]

I've been playing an EK fighter at level 4 (with a level 5 caster in the party), and I felt like I was contributing a lot. Even without using my GWM feat, I felt essential to both the party's tanking and damage. The casters pretty quickly burn through spells, need someone to keep enemies off them (so they can maintain concentration), and simply don't have the damage or endurance to take on every encounter by themselves. Even in terms of utility, a set of thieves' tools and 14 dex have been pretty useful in a dungeon, along with using strength(athletics) to overcome many obstacles.

Maybe it's just a matter of playing at low levels, but I haven't yet seen martials being useless in 5e, even outside combat.



this is true because, quite simply, feats increase damage, but not really any other primary function of a character. there are no feats to enhance your crowd control, no feats to enhance your ability to buff things, no feats to improve your skills, no feats to improve your spells (except for damage-dealing spells).

Crowd Control: Sentinel, polearm master (combos with with sentinel), grappler, tavern brawler, magic initiate(crowd control spell), martial adept, shield master

Skills: Skilled, athlete, observant, actor, dungeon delver, grappler, tavern brawler, linguist, lucky, skulker, magic initiate(skill-buff spell)

Buffing: War Caster and Resilient(Constitution) help buff people, as they decrease a caster's chance to lose concentration on buffs. Which is a real risk for anyone trying to cast a concentration buff.

[Once a Fool]

everyone should have equal opportunity to be effective, regardless of what kind of character they would like to play. you should not be punished for your decision to be a fighter with reduced effectiveness, whether it is a large decrease in effectiveness or a small decrease in effectiveness.

I guess you and I fundamentally disagree on whether or not optimization = effectiveness. I do not see it as a direct correlation.

In my experience--from both sides of the screen (figuratively; I haven't actually used a DM screen in at least a decade)--the more optimized characters are sometimes less generally effective. But maybe it's just that I--and the other people I play with--are good at compensating in play.

[Malifice]

In my experience--from both sides of the screen (figuratively; I haven't actually used a DM screen in at least a decade)--the more optimized characters are sometimes less generally effective.

I see this too. All too often heavy optimization leads to one trick ponies, with very one dimensional (and easy to counter) tactics.

Kinda like optimised grappling or tripping builds. You invariably have to rob Peter to pay Paul to get them up and running leaving you weak in other areas, and theyre very dependent on foes faced and very easily easily countered.

I've had (and seen) much more success with well put together generalists, than specialists types.

The Bard being a great example of this in 5E.

[Slipperychicken]

In my experience--from both sides of the screen (figuratively; I haven't actually used a DM screen in at least a decade)--the more optimized characters are sometimes less generally effective. But maybe it's just that I--and the other people I play with--are good at compensating in play.

Unless you go to extremes of breaking a system, a player's skill (and ability to influence the DM) is far more important to overall in-game performance. I also agree with the problems associated with overspecialization, which character build analyses often gloss over, understate, or ignore entirely.

[Wartex1]

The Bard isn't a generalist though. The bard excels in all areas, while a generalist would just be good at them.

The Bard gets full spellcasting, an extra attack, expertise, and excellent support.

[Malifice]

The Bard isn't a generalist though. The bard excels in all areas, while a generalist would just be good at them.

The Bard gets full spellcasting, an extra attack, expertise, and excellent support.

His 'full spellcasting' doesnt stack up to the Wizards list of spells, his extra attack doesnt stack up to the Fighter or barbarians ability to reliably inflict high DPR and tank, and his expertise doesnt stack up to the Rogue's extra skill tricks and kiting ability.

In practice, I've found Bards to be V good at everything, without being the best.

[Wartex1]

They're still really good at everything. That's not generalist, that's all-encompassing.

[SharkForce]

I've been playing an EK fighter at level 4 (with a level 5 caster in the party), and I felt like I was contributing a lot. Even without using my GWM feat, I felt essential to both the party's tanking and damage. The casters pretty quickly burn through spells, need someone to keep enemies off them (so they can maintain concentration), and simply don't have the damage or endurance to take on every encounter by themselves. Even in terms of utility, a set of thieves' tools and 14 dex have been pretty useful in a dungeon, along with using strength(athletics) to overcome many obstacles.

Maybe it's just a matter of playing at low levels, but I haven't yet seen martials being useless in 5e, even outside combat.



Crowd Control: Sentinel, polearm master (combos with with sentinel), grappler, tavern brawler, magic initiate(crowd control spell), martial adept, shield master

Skills: Skilled, athlete, observant, actor, dungeon delver, grappler, tavern brawler, linguist, lucky, skulker, magic initiate(skill-buff spell)

Buffing: War Caster and Resilient(Constitution) help buff people, as they decrease a caster's chance to lose concentration on buffs. Which is a real risk for anyone trying to cast a concentration buff.

sentinel is barely helpful at all (a single attack once per round is not generally threatening enough unless you're a rogue perhaps), polearm master is again merely a single attack (which is only useful as CC in combination with sentinel, and still only works 1/round), grappler is trash, tavern brawler is... well, it's not totally bad, magic initiate is terribad as CC unless you're a spellcaster who already gets access to the spell most likely, martial adept is barely even worth taking for a battlemaster let alone anyone else, and shield master only inflicts prone which is barely more than a minor nuisance.

skilled doesn't make you better at using skills, it only gives you more skills (but since you've already got at least 4, and likely don't have the attributes to back up more than that anyways, no big deal). athlete doesn't do much for skills. it improves your mobility slightly, but the only skill it actually improves is athletics while climbing. tavern brawler is only for grappling, linguist isn't skills, lucky actually does help, skulker does give you new utility with stealth, and there are no good level 1 or cantrip skill-buff spells, and if there were, you probably don't have the attribute to cast them well. think i missed observant in there somewhere... it does actually help as well at least. it certainly won't make you great at a skill though... just more consistently above-average.

warcaster and resilient con help when you get hit. that's nice and all, but if you're using them regularly, you should plan better on how not to get hit. they should be like a life jacket. you don't wear a life jacket because you expect your boat to overturn and you don't know how to swim, nor do you wear your life jacket because it will make you better at driving the boat. you wear a life jacket because if things go horribly wrong and your boat does overturn somehow and you get knocked unconscious, you are much less likely to drown. likewise, warcaster and resilient con don't help you buff, they're just an added layer of protection in case everything goes wrong. it isn't your job to take the hits.

for several classes, their primary function is to deal damage. feats provide a major boost to that, and do not provide an even remotely equal boost to other areas. a class that primarily deals damage is more reliant on feats than a class that does not, because the class that does not primarily deal damage is given the tools as part of their class to perform their primary function whatever it may be; a rogue does not need any feats to be good at skills, a wizard does not need any feats to be good at casting spells, a monk doesn't need any feats to be a monk (which is fine, because they are one of the few classes where +2 to a tertiary attribute is actually competitive with a feat).

that said, letting warriors get more opportunity attacks would absolutely help. but that isn't the subject of this thread.

(also, +1 to a set of actions you almost never use is not a significant loss in versatility. especially not when it comes with doing your primary function much better than you otherwise would).

[djreynolds]

These are all great points, The way I see it now as a champion, I'll max out my strength and then hit up dex and grab archery at level 10. This should given me some combat flexibility so I don't have to be in the enemies face. Plus with remarkable athlete and increasing my dexterity, after max out strength, I should be able to drop the chainmail when needed and don leather and assist on missions where stealth is needed. Indomitable is better than no rerolling at all.
I could grab protector as well at 10 and instead of dexterity max out con and help out the rogue when they're trying to sneak attack.
We'll see how it goes. Hopefully next game we will use feats. I like that shield master and I like sentinel. And I like resilient.

But thanks again, all great insight for me the newbie