Is sword and board combat suboptimal?

[Trandir]

Compared to the ranged combat and two handed combat it seems under appreciated.

There is no GWM or Sharpshooter for that and PAM loses most of his appeal with that setup. You get that mistic +2 to AC and Shield Master is an intresting but probably niche defensive feat.

What's your opinion?

[Dark.Revenant]

2 to 5 (with magic items) AC is a big deal, the defensive benefits of Shield Master are widely applicable, and the ability to shove people as a bonus action is a significant damage-per-round bonus for most martial characters (even if you use the latest ruling that the shove has to come after an attack).

I would say, against high-AC, high-attack foes or blaster-type spellcasters and monsters, Shield Master is superior to GWM/SS from a purely mechanical standpoint.

[stoutstien]

Compared to the ranged combat and two handed combat it seems under appreciated.

There is no GWM or Sharpshooter for that and PAM loses most of his appeal with that setup. You get that mistic +2 to AC and Shield Master is an intresting but probably niche defensive feat.

What's your opinion?

Short answer: no. In most games I run I see more SnB users than THF. About on par with range focused characters.

Even without one hand PAM cheese a standard duelist fighter can push out solid damage and be less of a drain on resources by taken less damage.

[LudicSavant]

GWM users suffer from being strength-based and having less AC, and GWM doesn’t offer as much of a damage increase as you might think if you’re not factoring in accuracy and the fact that you’re exchanging an ASI for it (so you can kinda think of it as -6/+9). So SnB comes out alright.

For example a finesse Shadowblade EK build can outdamage many GWM users, and have a sky-high AC and Init relative to a GWMer while they’re at it.

[Foxhound438]

Sure, in terms of damage potential. I wouldn't call it totally suboptimal, since as others point out there are pretty good upsides to it, but the top end damage when you have easy sources of advantage (say, as a level 2 barbarian who gets to just choose to) is in fact noticeably lower. Even more so if your class or build doesn't get access to a good bonus action (and no, I don't count shield master since the shove is only after the attacks now so you yourself can't even benefit from the advantage, as well as the fact that turn order can make it moot, and it can even hinder your allies rather than help them if they're using any ranged attacks).

I've tried a GWM build on a Vengeance Paladin and hated it compared to all the s+b builds that I had done before and have done since, but maybe that was just an unlucky game for me.

I've also seen people take whichever power attack feat and make everyone else at the table irrelevant in combat.

[MaxWilson]

Compared to the ranged combat and two handed combat it seems under appreciated.

There is no GWM or Sharpshooter for that and PAM loses most of his appeal with that setup. You get that mistic +2 to AC and Shield Master is an intresting but probably niche defensive feat.

What's your opinion?

It's okay as a secondary style for e.g. a Sharpshooter who's temporarily forced into a melee configuration (rapier + shield) due to close quarters combat or not having another tank PC available or really wanting to protect weaker NPCs via opportunity attacks or something.

The nice thing about sword-and-shield is it really doesn't require any build investment at all, only equipment. You pull out your shield and don it with your action, and you're ready to go: now your party has another tank.

[Zerubbabel]

We don't see much discussion about dual weapon fighting on this board, but if the DM is gifting out strong magic items I always thought this would be preferable - i.e. wielding 2x swords which are +5 with additional damage 1-6 or 1-8 fire etc. When you want to bring down that Dragon as quickly as possible, a Shield isn't terribly useful?

Great weapons are fun, but you can only gain the benefit of using a single weapon. Two weapons may have a range of effects - i.e. Weapon one has stun, Weapon two has level drain or health drain etc.

[Addaran]

S&B is far from suboptimal. One less feat ( or shield master), you're tougher, even your damage is pretty much the same against high-AC enemies, if you have the dueling fighting style. (1d8+2 instead of 2d6 average almost the same)

For barbarian THF is more attractive though (no fighting style, resistance to compensate for lack of shield and advantage for the to-hit penalty)


We don't see much discussion about dual weapon fighting on this board, but if the DM is gifting out strong magic items I always thought this would be preferable - i.e. wielding 2x swords which are +5 with additional damage 1-6 or 1-8 fire etc. When you want to bring down that Dragon as quickly as possible, a Shield isn't terribly useful?

Great weapons are fun, but you can only gain the benefit of using a single weapon. Two weapons may have a range of effects - i.e. Weapon one has stun, Weapon two has level drain or health drain etc.

The big downside with dual weapon fighting is when you get more then one attack. Even worst on fighter when you're at 3 or 4. Start as +100% attack, then +50%, +33% then +25%.

[Zuras]

Sword and Board is just fine. It doesn’t have the max damage potential of the -5/+10 feats, but any time you’re fighting numerous opponents with modest attack bonuses you will really notice the difference.

If your DM never sends swarms of mooks at you and you spend your time fighting giant zombies with +10 to attack and AC 10, it’s not as potent.

[BarneyBent]

No. The flat +2 damage works out about equal to GWM/SS without advantage against middle of the road enemy ACs, outperforming against higher AC enemies. You also don’t need a feat for it.

In addition, an extra 2-5 AC is MASSIVE. AC experiences increasing returns as your base AC gets higher.

In short, S&B is probably the most consistent and reliable style for melee damage and tanking.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Also, if you ever play a published adventure, the most common magic weapons are one-handed or versatile melee weapons.

[Jerrykhor]

Sword and board are not suboptimal, at least not in the same way Two-Weapon Fighting is. They trade off damage for higher AC, whereas TWF just trade off damage and bonus action for nothing.

[Dork_Forge]

Sword and board are not suboptimal, at least not in the same way Two-Weapon Fighting is. They trade off damage for higher AC, whereas TWF just trade off damage and bonus action for nothing.

That's just not true, you're trading your bonus for an additional attack without feat investment or requiring a class ability and the damage difference isn't much compared to GWM.

OP: Swoard and Board isn't suboptimal at all, it's fun and proivdes a good mix of damage and defenisve ability.

[Jerrykhor]

That's just not true, you're trading your bonus for an additional attack without feat investment or requiring a class ability and the damage difference isn't much compared to GWM.

OP: Swoard and Board isn't suboptimal at all, it's fun and proivdes a good mix of damage and defenisve ability.

TWF is just flat out less damage than GWM except pre level5, even without taking into consideration of feats. The more Extra attacks you get, the worse it is.

Lets say Fighter 20 with 4 attacks. A TWF fighter can make 4+1 attacks, all with 1h weapon. But a GWM Figther makes 4 attacks with big weapon, and still have bonus action for class ability and whatever. I think its obvious which one is better.

[Dork_Forge]

TWF is just flat out less damage than GWM except pre level5, even without taking into consideration of feats. The more Extra attacks you get, the worse it is.

Lets say Fighter 20 with 4 attacks. A TWF fighter can make 4+1 attacks, all with 1h weapon. But a GWM Figther makes 4 attacks with big weapon, and still have bonus action for class ability and whatever. I think its obvious which one is better.

GWM IS a feat and unless you're a V. Human you're delaying primary stat progression for it. Separately that bonus damage relies on taking a -5 penalty, not a big deal on a SS build with Archery to compensate, but on a GWM when you're already delaying your attack stat how often is it going to be a viable tactic? You've sunk a feat into a situational damage boost that you can't guarantee vs just picking up another weapon.

It consuming a bonus action isn't really much of a factor, of the three classes that get fighting styles none of them have a consistent bonus action like a Monk or Rogue and if you choose to use a bonus action feature then it's no loss. You simply don't make your additional attack that turn.

When you get GWM off it's certainly a nice damage boost, but to say in comparison TWF fighting is a waste is just silly. An extra attack is still ANOTHER attack, it's another die+mod damage, another chance to smite or drop a maneuver.

[Jerrykhor]

GWM IS a feat and unless you're a V. Human you're delaying primary stat progression for it. Separately that bonus damage relies on taking a -5 penalty, not a big deal on a SS build with Archery to compensate, but on a GWM when you're already delaying your attack stat how often is it going to be a viable tactic? You've sunk a feat into a situational damage boost that you can't guarantee vs just picking up another weapon.

It consuming a bonus action isn't really much of a factor, of the three classes that get fighting styles none of them have a consistent bonus action like a Monk or Rogue and if you choose to use a bonus action feature then it's no loss. You simply don't make your additional attack that turn.

When you get GWM off it's certainly a nice damage boost, but to say in comparison TWF fighting is a waste is just silly. An extra attack is still ANOTHER attack, it's another die+mod damage, another chance to smite or drop a maneuver.

I was saying even without the GWM feat, 2h weapon style is still better. Bonus Action is not much at low levels, but at higher levels its a big resource. Action Economy is a thing, and some magic items require bonus action to activate/use. An extra attack with a small weapon cannot make up for all the other attacks with a big weapon, especially when things that give extra attacks like Haste or Action Surge are involved. TWF simply get less mileage out of them.

Then there's also opportunity attack. TWF only do OA with their small weapon, while 2h guy hit with their big weapon. You can't argue against math.

[Dork_Forge]

I was saying even without the GWM feat, 2h weapon style is still better. Bonus Action is not much at low levels, but at higher levels its a big resource. Action Economy is a thing, and some magic items require bonus action to activate/use. An extra attack with a small weapon cannot make up for all the other attacks with a big weapon, especially when things that give extra attacks like Haste or Action Surge are involved. TWF simply get less mileage out of them.

For each increase in die size you essentially gain a point of average damage, before 5th level TWF surpasses that. After 5th level, mod+average damage on a shortsword/scimitar is still keeping up with/ahead of that (average damage difference between Greatsword and d6 1hander is 3 points, TWF attack hitting at lvl 5-7=7.5dmg).

Rangers don't get the GWF style but even if they did both they and Paladins are limited to 2 attacks. Fighters at lvl11+ would certainly get more mileage out of a bigger weapon, and at this point things certainly tip more towards GWF. Most play takes place below that level, a lot of campaigns don't even get to that level.

In regards to the action economy thing, it certainly is a thing, a magic item requiring a bonus to activate seems like to much of a niche thing to really factor in here but alright. Taking magic items into consideration, what do you think will be more common: magical great weapons or magical one hand/versatile weapons?

To clarify though, I'm not saying TWF is better than GWF, nor am I under that impression. It just irks me that people treat TWF as worthless when it is anything but.

[Jerrykhor]

For each increase in die size you essentially gain a point of average damage, before 5th level TWF surpasses that. After 5th level, mod+average damage on a shortsword/scimitar is still keeping up with/ahead of that (average damage difference between Greatsword and d6 1hander is 3 points, TWF attack hitting at lvl 5-7=7.5dmg).

Rangers don't get the GWF style but even if they did both they and Paladins are limited to 2 attacks. Fighters at lvl11+ would certainly get more mileage out of a bigger weapon, and at this point things certainly tip more towards GWF. Most play takes place below that level, a lot of campaigns don't even get to that level.

In regards to the action economy thing, it certainly is a thing, a magic item requiring a bonus to activate seems like to much of a niche thing to really factor in here but alright. Taking magic items into consideration, what do you think will be more common: magical great weapons or magical one hand/versatile weapons?

To clarify though, I'm not saying TWF is better than GWF, nor am I under that impression. It just irks me that people treat TWF as worthless when it is anything but.
IMO it is kind of worthless when its simply "melee but worse than 2h". The bonus action requirement is bad enough, and the feat support is even worse.

Taking magic items into consideration, one can also argue that TWF might need 2 slots of attunement for 2 magic weapons, but a 2h only needs 1 attunement slot for his weapon.

There are other things like a TWF eldritch knight dont have a free hand to cast spells if they dont have Warcaster, but 2h style dont have that problem.

[Zuras]

I was saying even without the GWM feat, 2h weapon style is still better. Bonus Action is not much at low levels, but at higher levels its a big resource. Action Economy is a thing, and some magic items require bonus action to activate/use. An extra attack with a small weapon cannot make up for all the other attacks with a big weapon, especially when things that give extra attacks like Haste or Action Surge are involved. TWF simply get less mileage out of them.

Then there's also opportunity attack. TWF only do OA with their small weapon, while 2h guy hit with their big weapon. You can't argue against math.

Have you done the math for Halfling two-handed fighters? Or are you arguing that small races should never be a valid choice for a melee combatant?

[stoutstien]

Have you done the math for Halfling two-handed fighters? Or are you arguing that small races should never be a valid choice for a melee combatant?

As far as the math goes a d8 weapon plus the duelist style is on par with a d12 damage but with a higher floor of damage.

[sithlordnergal]

Compared to the ranged combat and two handed combat it seems under appreciated.

There is no GWM or Sharpshooter for that and PAM loses most of his appeal with that setup. You get that mistic +2 to AC and Shield Master is an intresting but probably niche defensive feat.

What's your opinion?

It really depends on what you're after in a character. Damage wise, Two handed weapons will do more flat damage then a sword and board, especially if they have GWM and hit. However, Two Handed fighters give up quite a lot of defense in exchange for that damage. Sure, the Barbarian is gonna be fine since Barbarians tank with HP. But Fighters and Paladins aren't going to last nearly as long since they tank through AC.

As for ranged combat, most combat styles are weaker then ranged combat because Ranged combat tends to be strictly better. Paladins are really the only class that loses out in ranged combat. Fighters and Barbarians can still be extremely effective at their job no matter their range, and when you mix the Archery Fighting Style with Sharpshooter, you can make a really deadly sniper.

That said, PAM does work with SnB. I'd take that and Magic Initiate for Shillelgah in order to have a nice d8 weapon that you can use PAM with. Because remember, just because Shillelgah says "you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls", it doesn't mean you have to. You can cast it, continue to use Strength, or Charisma if you're a Hexblade, and keep the benefits of having a non-concentration d8 magical quarterstaff to make bonus action attacks with.

[ImproperJustice]

In general, characters at 0hp have terrible dps.


So, I have seen characters at mid to high tier with that +4 AC that comes from a magic shield, still stand tall when facing foes that are auto-hitting the GWFs.

It helps that our GM rules that Shield Master works in a functional fashion.

[Petrocorus]

SnB is fine. And Shield Master can profit your party. You will on average do less damages than GWM and SS, except against high AC, but still do damages, and this is probably the best style against swarm of mooks and blasters.

The one issue i see with this is that it's basically the "Tank" configuration, but your tankiness doesn't directly profit your party if enemies can just past beyond you to attack your wizard/bard/etc.

So this is a fighting style that you will want to use if you have other features that make it punishing for your foes to not attack you. Whether because you do a lot of damages thanks to divine smite / manoeuvers / magic or because you directly punishes them it they attack other party member with Sentinel or class feature that allows attack or gives disadvantages.

[djreynolds]

well now, you can switch it out. Yeah for UA

You can begin S&B and at later levels switch.

The reality is you are not always going to be able to use a particular setup, its why you have multiple weapon and armor proficiencies.

You might be a S&B warrior but the only silvered weapon is a pike, or perhaps you have a magic great club and you are fighting werewolves

But yes it is lower damage on average than using a greatsword/longbow

[Dork_Forge]

IMO it is kind of worthless when its simply "melee but worse than 2h". The bonus action requirement is bad enough, and the feat support is even worse.

Taking magic items into consideration, one can also argue that TWF might need 2 slots of attunement for 2 magic weapons, but a 2h only needs 1 attunement slot for his weapon.

There are other things like a TWF eldritch knight dont have a free hand to cast spells if they dont have Warcaster, but 2h style dont have that problem.

To say that it's worthless because it doesn't match the damage potential of a Fighter at greater than 11th level is ridiculous and ignores not only personal preference but basically says all small races are worthless.

If you can't provide a consistent use for a bonus then please stop saying it's such a bad cost, bonus attacks seem just fine when gained from PAM.

There's plenty of feats compatible with fighing with two weapons, there's only two feats specific to 2H and one of those needs a Glaive or Halberd specifically. Dual Wielder is not the best of feats, but it still provides an AC boost over 2H and a damage boost (as well as making more magical weapons available). Otherwise? Sentinel works just fine and even Defensive Duelist is on the table.

Not all magic weapons take an attunement slot (+x are probably going to be the most common encountered), but a martial spending attunment slots on weapons is hardly a bad thing?

There's plenty of reasons for an EK to want Warcaster, a TWF has no more motivation for it than a sword and board.

[Waazraath]

Compared to the ranged combat and two handed combat it seems under appreciated.

There is no GWM or Sharpshooter for that and PAM loses most of his appeal with that setup. You get that mistic +2 to AC and Shield Master is an intresting but probably niche defensive feat.

What's your opinion?

Depends on the class. For a class like barbarian, I'd skip sword & board (bar niche builds), cause reckless attack works just too well with GWM, and the class gets too few damage boosts over the levels to make S&B keep being worth it. For classes like paladin, melee cleric or melee rogue, yes please. Damage will come from other sources anyway (smite, divine strike, sneak attack, the latter 2 if possible in combination with a SCAG-cantrip) so the extra AC is more important.

In the end it all depends on the specific build, party composition etc., but in short, the answer is "no".

[Zuras]

However, Two Handed fighters give up quite a lot of defense in exchange for that damage. Sure, the Barbarian is gonna be fine since Barbarians tank with HP. But Fighters and Paladins aren't going to last nearly as long since they tank through AC.


Even Barbarians end up wanting decent AC vs hordes of enemies in most campaigns. Especially at higher levels, swarms of enemies with more than a Fireball’s worth of HP but only a modest attack bonus can really challenge a low AC Barbarian. In Undermountain, the S&B Paladin had a lot less trouble with hordes of Drow Elite Warriors than the 2H Fighter and Barbarian. Even the regular Drow, with their pathetic damage, ended up causing the Barbarian problems because he faced so many low DC Con saves vs Drow poison he eventually got poisoned.

Granted, part of this was due to recklessly attacking in situations where a 16 AC is still relatively stout, but still...

AC is important, even to a raging Barbarian.

[sithlordnergal]

Even Barbarians end up wanting decent AC vs hordes of enemies in most campaigns. Especially at higher levels, swarms of enemies with more than a Fireball’s worth of HP but only a modest attack bonus can really challenge a low AC Barbarian. In Undermountain, the S&B Paladin had a lot less trouble with hordes of Drow Elite Warriors than the 2H Fighter and Barbarian. Even the regular Drow, with their pathetic damage, ended up causing the Barbarian problems because he faced so many low DC Con saves vs Drow poison he eventually got poisoned.

Granted, part of this was due to recklessly attacking in situations where a 16 AC is still relatively stout, but still...

AC is important, even to a raging Barbarian.

True, even a Barbarian will want some sort of AC, and they need to know when to recklessly attack and when to be more defensive. But still, a Raging Barbarian with 16 AC will usually last a bit longer then a PAaladin of the same level with a 16 AC.

[MaxWilson]

Even Barbarians end up wanting decent AC vs hordes of enemies in most campaigns. Especially at higher levels, swarms of enemies with more than a Fireball’s worth of HP but only a modest attack bonus can really challenge a low AC Barbarian. In Undermountain, the S&B Paladin had a lot less trouble with hordes of Drow Elite Warriors than the 2H Fighter and Barbarian. Even the regular Drow, with their pathetic damage, ended up causing the Barbarian problems because he faced so many low DC Con saves vs Drow poison he eventually got poisoned.

Granted, part of this was due to recklessly attacking in situations where a 16 AC is still relatively stout, but still...

AC is important, even to a raging Barbarian.

Agreed, but note that an alternative approach is to exploit Barbarian's high-ish mobility and learn to strafe instead of trying to tank the whole horde at once. Even a Barbarian needs to use smart positioning.

[ravenkith]

The answer to your question is: whether snb is suboptimal or not depends on the build.

Consider a paladin framework mixed with hexblade. If you go vhuman, and an 8 pally 12 hexblade mix, snb with two weapon fighting, shield master, dual wielded and tavern brawler gets pretty interesting, especially when you view each attack as a smite delivery vehicle to be combined with hexblade curse, hex, and the warlock invocations superior pact weapon and lifedrinker.

Hex warrior lets you use cha for attack and damage, pact weapon shenanigans can get you +2 to attack and damage with your weapon and your shield with both acting as spellcasting foci, AND you can use hex to add a d6 damage to each attack, and the hexblade curse to add your proficiency bonus as damage to each attackwhile also allowing you to crit on a 19 or 20 while life drinker adds your charisma mod in damage to each attack AGAIN as well.

Add into that your ac bonus, the bonus to dex saves which stacks nicely with cha to saves and the ancients oath shenanigans, as well as the ability to turn all dex saves for half damage into dex saves for none, and a winner is you.

It’s all about the build.

[Warlush]

Also maybe some of y'all should put your calculators up. It's also fun to play whatever style you enjoy playing. That's never suboptimal. ❤

[MaxWilson]

Also maybe some of y'all should put your calculators up. It's also fun to play whatever style you enjoy playing. That's never suboptimal. ❤

Did you just tell people to stop playing the way they enjoy playing, while telling people to play the way they enjoy playing?

[Yakk]

The sword and board is optimal when
1. You can reliably force monsters to attack you, and can buff AC enough to make them mostly miss.
2. You deal damage not with weapon damage. For example, crit-fishing smite builds who need bonus actions for other stuff.
3. You aren't dealing damage; the sword is a prop.

1 lets your defence payoff for entire team.

2 means the offence drop from not going with deadlier weapons doesn't matter much, while the defence is free.

3 is most valor bards, clerics and the like. It is 2+ free AC.

[Dork_Forge]

The sword and board is optimal when
1. You can reliably force monsters to attack you, and can buff AC enough to make them mostly miss.
2. You deal damage not with weapon damage. For example, crit-fishing smite builds who need bonus actions for other stuff.
3. You aren't dealing damage; the sword is a prop.

1 lets your defence payoff for entire team.

2 means the offence drop from not going with deadlier weapons doesn't matter much, while the defence is free.

3 is most valor bards, clerics and the like. It is 2+ free AC.

With Dueling the damage is pretty comparable, all you're missing out on is GWM and PAM really.

[Zhorn]

With Dueling the damage is pretty comparable, all you're missing out on is GWM and PAM really.

And even then, it's only missing out on PAM if you are strict on the sword'n'board part, since spears qualify for PAM.

[djreynolds]

Also remember the critical hit/kill for a bonus action of the great weapon master feat does not require a heavy weapon

S&B even with just a plain old fighter with duelist style can put out decent damage and its consistent

[Gignere]

Also what’s optimal is contingent on party composition. If there is another tank, you might be able to go 2 hander and max DPR.

Alternatively if there is a GOD caster that is great at controlling battlefield and minimizing damage to the party picking two hander might be great.

However, if your party consists of a bunch of range DPR like sorlock, ranger with archery style, etc that loves to pew pew and can’t find a control/buff spell you probably want to stick with the SnB.

[sithlordnergal]

With Dueling the damage is pretty comparable, all you're missing out on is GWM and PAM really.

Oh you don't have to miss out on PAM at all. In fact, I'd say Dueling is the best fighting style for PAM since you can use the Spear or Quarterstaff as a one handed weapon. And don't forget, Shillelagh is a cantrip that can turn a quarterstaff into a magical d8 weapon, so all you need to do is either Multiclass or snag Magic Initiate to get it.

[Gignere]

Another thing I notice is that people always assume that two handers must take GWF style but I think for optimization you should pick defense style instead. GWF only makes sense if your DM rules that you reroll all damage rolls including smite damage, BM dice etc. However I think many only allow rerolling the weapon dice.

So when I build two hand fighters I generally prefer to pick defense style.

[stoutstien]

Another thing I notice is that people always assume that two handers must take GWF style but I think for optimization you should pick defense style instead. GWF only makes sense if your DM rules that you reroll all damage rolls including smite damage, BM dice etc. However I think many only allow rerolling the weapon dice.

So when I build two hand fighters I generally prefer to pick defense style.

I thought the general consensus was defense for 2hd. Of course I think defense is the best period. Damage is great but AC is much harder to come by especially flat bonuses.

[Willie the Duck]

Compared to the ranged combat and two handed combat it seems under appreciated.

It's worth noting that board chatter is often most focused on what is complicated, and thus of need of discussion, rather than what is or isn't appreciated. Sword and Board is the fighting type that requires the least investment (although a shield and one-handed Shillelagh and PAM is a complicated option), so it is often the choice for those who cannot afford to spend build resources such as feats (or cannot, since it is a feat-less game). It is also the combat choice for anyone who isn't going to use their build resources as their primary combat determinant (example: a smite-using sorcadin has delayed ASI accumulation, and their damage doesn't need to come from GWM or the like). Also for characters who aren't going to be attacking every round, but are being subjected to attacks ever round (a cleric who might attack sometimes, but often are spellcasting instead would probably prefer a higher AC than some slight damage increase).

[da newt]

Having messed with it for a bit over the last 2 months, I can say that Spear&Shield PAM, with a MC Fighter(BM)/Barbarian Bugbear works better than I expected.

The last couple games our party has included my PC and a VHuman Halberd wielding PAM, GWM, Sentinel and my dueling and rage damage with PAM only is very nearly his equal.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I thought the general consensus was defense for 2hd. Of course I think defense is the best period. Damage is great but AC is much harder to come by especially flat bonuses.

Generally, I think the consensus is that Archery is the best fighting style, followed by Defense. Archery is ahead, not because attack is better than AC, but because it's twice the bonus Defense is and both attack rolls and AC are better than flat damage (personally, I think Archery probably should have been a +1 to hit with ranged attacks, which would make it comparable to Defense).

Of course, not everyone wants to play a ranged fighter, in which case Defense is definitely your best option.