Opinion- at Tier 1, all melee oriented characters should wear shields

[diplomancer]

So, this is more of a question to the more mathematically gifted, but based on play experience. It strongly feels, to me, that before Extra Attack/GWF, the difference between one-handed weapons and two-handed weapons pale in comparison to the benefits of +2 AC. So, even if your plan IS to be a damage-oriented melee build, you should still, for optimization purposes, go Long Sword and Shield (or Spear and Shield if you start with PAM) in tier 1. Seeing both the Paladin and Barbarian being hit regularly and having to spend slots to heal them, just so they can Instakill kobolds instead of just knocking them out feels a horrid waste to me.

The martial versatility rule even allows you to begin with Duelling and switch out at level 4, just when you are about to switch to the heavy hitters. Thoughts?

[Hytheter]

That makes a lot of sense, actually. One problem is that using a shield is likely to clash with the character's intended aesthetic if they aren't using one already, but I think mathematically you're probably onto something.

[diplomancer]

That makes a lot of sense, actually. One problem is that using a shield is likely to clash with the character's intended aesthetic if they aren't using one already, but I think mathematically you're probably onto something.

Yeah, it's why I mentioned "for optimization purposes", I do realize that it clashes with some player's fantasy for the heavy-hitters (though I must say, the guy who starts wearing a shield and later casts it off because he's already tough enough to do without it certainly appeals to me)

[Contrast]

One point to consider is that that average damage on a one handed weapon assuming a +3 is 7.5 and one a greatsword is 10 (and is much more tightly focused in the middle range - you're much less likely to roll minimum damage).

At low levels where you have 1 attack and enemies typically have low HP, the number of hits per kill is very important. A goblin for example has 7HP. A long sword will usually kill it in a single hit but there's a pretty good chance it won't, whereas a great weapon will have a very high chance of killing it in a single hit. A pretty marginal change in damage can make a goblin take twice as long to kill.

Also you've missed out the other (admittedly much maligned) option. For a lot of people, two weapon fighting might well actually be the sensible choice at low levels. 1d6+stat and 1d6 is the same damage as a greatsword (2d6+stat) but you're getting the option to spread the damage around more efficiently potentially and 2 attacks reduces the number of turns where you whiff completely (which just feels bad).

[diplomancer]

One point to consider is that that average damage on a one handed weapon assuming a +3 is 7.5 and one a greatsword is 10 (and is much more tightly focused in the middle range - you're much less likely to roll minimum damage).

At low levels where you have 1 attack and enemies typically have low HP, the number of hits per kill is very important. A goblin for example has 7HP. A long sword will usually kill it in a single hit but there's a pretty good chance it won't, whereas a great weapon will have a very high chance of killing it in a single hit. A pretty marginal chance in damage can make a goblin take twice as long to kill.

Also you've missed out the other (admittedly much maligned option). For a lot of people, two weapon fighting might well actually be the sensible choice at low levels. 1d6+stat and 1d6 is the same damage as a greatsword (2d6+stat) but you're getting the option to spread the damage around more efficiently potentially and 2 attacks reduces the number of turns where you whiff completely (which just feels bad).

True, 2-weapon fighting, specially if you have the style, is also very good at Tier 1- not a lot of bonus action competition, and it's basically the only resource free way of getting rid of 2 critters in one turn.. Consider my post to be more about "why you should not use a 2 Handed weapon-or, Gods forbid, a Battle Axe- at tier 1"

[Waazraath]

So, this is more of a question to the more mathematically gifted, but based on play experience. It strongly feels, to me, that before Extra Attack/GWF, the difference between one-handed weapons and two-handed weapons pale in comparison to the benefits of +2 AC. So, even if your plan IS to be a damage-oriented melee build, you should still, for optimization purposes, go Long Sword and Shield (or Spear and Shield if you start with PAM) in tier 1. Seeing both the Paladin and Barbarian being hit regularly and having to spend slots to heal them, just so they can Instakill kobolds instead of just knocking them out feels a horrid waste to me.

The martial versatility rule even allows you to begin with Duelling and switch out at level 4, just when you are about to switch to the heavy hitters. Thoughts?

I think you're right, at the very least for the early levels. Encountering 4hp foes with a +3 modifier makes it irrelevant what kind of weapon you wield anyway, and +2 AC goes a long way (personally, I even favor defense fighting style + shield for a +3, compared with 2wf / 2 handed). At higher levels, it depends a bit; if you often come across foes that need on average 2 hits from a greatsword or 3 hits from a longsword, this advantage might disappear. Personally, it's not enough to divert from a concept I want to play - if I want to play a 2 weapon fighter, the advantage of sword & board style isn't big enough to deter me from that.

[stoutstien]

Some classes are honestly better off always using a shield but knowing that they are dealing marginally less damage makes some player's eye twitch.

As far as low levels go twf and snb are tied in my mind. Even without the style having a bonus action attack is a big deal but +2 AC is a noticable jump in mitigation. If npcs tend to runaway or retreat before death or if we are talking about mindless hp pools is a factor as well. Then I would have to say party make up with what the total hp recover pool they have available as the next big question.

[diplomancer]

Some classes are honestly better off always using a shield but knowing that they are dealing marginally less damage makes some player's eye twitch.

As far as low levels go twf and snb are tied in my mind. Even without the style having a bonus action attack is a big deal but +2 AC is a noticable jump in mitigation. If npcs tend to runaway or retreat before death or if we are talking about mindless hp pools is a factor as well. Then I would have to say party make up with what the total hp recover pool they have available as the next big question.

Another good point; whether a goblin will remain in the battle after being hit for 6 Hit Points, having only 1 hit point left, is very much a DM call. IF they DO tend to run once they are very close to death, 2-handed style gets even worse in this Tier.


I think you're right, at the very least for the early levels. Encountering 4hp foes with a +3 modifier makes it irrelevant what kind of weapon you wield anyway, and +2 AC goes a long way (personally, I even favor defense fighting style + shield for a +3, compared with 2wf / 2 handed). At higher levels, it depends a bit; if you often come across foes that need on average 2 hits from a greatsword or 3 hits from a longsword, this advantage might disappear. Personally, it's not enough to divert from a concept I want to play - if I want to play a 2 weapon fighter, the advantage of sword & board style isn't big enough to deter me from that.

I agree, shield and Defense might be better than shield and Duelling; but if DOES bother you being so defensive for a character that you picture being a heavy hitter, starting with duelling and switching out to defense at level 4 might be the way to go (with a plus 5 modifier from duelling your chances of not killing a goblin when you hit are 1 in 8, still worse than the 1 in 12 from using a Greatsword, but considerably better than the 1 in 4 chance from using a Greataxe)

[Guy Lombard-O]

One point to consider is that that average damage on a one handed weapon assuming a +3 is 7.5 and one a greatsword is 10 (and is much more tightly focused in the middle range - you're much less likely to roll minimum damage).

At low levels where you have 1 attack and enemies typically have low HP, the number of hits per kill is very important. A goblin for example has 7HP. A long sword will usually kill it in a single hit but there's a pretty good chance it won't, whereas a great weapon will have a very high chance of killing it in a single hit. A pretty marginal change in damage can make a goblin take twice as long to kill.

I think the OP was suggesting that sword & board be enhanced by the Dueling FS (to which all but 1 of the main martial classes have access). So the average damage for a greatsword may be 10 (unless someone's messing about with the GWF fighting style, but I'll ignore that possibility since most players do), but the one-handed weapon (assuming a +3) is more likely to be 9.5 damage. Which makes the choice to be a +0.5 average damage for the GW user, in exchange for 1 less AC (assuming the Defense FS for the GW user).

The one-handed & shield option is probably better. But I'm not sure it's "ignore how you envision your character due to inferior mechanics" better.

And switching it up at 4th level, using the Tasha's retraining rules, is certainly possible. But it smacks of that "gamist" approach to character builds which some folks find pretty distasteful (sort of like switching out a subclass for a better one to ride subclasses power curves, but on a lesser scale).

[Granitecosmos]

Let's do a comparison for early levels, assuming 16 in primary ability score. Base damage will be one-handed Longsword; 7,5 after stats. For AC, an average base chance of 50% for enemies to hit; assume a +5 to attack rolls on average, thus 16 player character AC. Player accuracy is the same in all cases and thus irrelevant. Encounter: 4 CR1 monsters, one attack each with average 10 damage. Assume Interception is used every round.

Fighting Styles and Equipment:

Greatsword and GWF: 11,33 damage.
Greatsword and Defense: 10 damage, +1 AC.
Longsword&Shield and Dueling: 9,5 damage, +2 AC.
Longsword&Shield and Defense: 7,5 damage, +3 AC.
Longsword&Shield and Interception: 7,5 damage, +2 AC, up to average of 7,5 possible damage reduction.

Conclusion, not accounting for save-based attacks:

Greatsword and GWF: kills enemies 51% faster; total 51% more combat power.
Greatsword and Defense: kills enemies 33% faster, is hit 10% less times; total 48% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield and Dueling: kills enemies 27% faster, is hit 20% less times; total 58% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield and Defense: is hit 30% less times; total 43% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield and Interception: is hit 20% less times, makes ally hit points 23% more effective; total 48% more combat power.

Yes, shields are better for frontline in general against enemies with attack rolls only; but not just because of Duelist. At lower levels Interception is brokenly good, even more so if you use it to help your low-AC party members. It's a taunt-style feature that can force enemies to focus you, starting as early as level 1; this not only improves average party AC via diverting attacks to the tank, it also makes healing more effective for the same reason. Take Interception, make levels 1-3 a breeze, switch to Dueling at level 4 (or keep Interception, it's your choice).

[diplomancer]

I think the OP was suggesting that sword & board be enhanced by the Dueling FS (to which all but 1 of the main martial classes have access). So the average damage for a greatsword may be 10 (unless someone's messing about with the GWF fighting style, but I'll ignore that possibility since most players do), but the one-handed weapon (assuming a +3) is more likely to be 9.5 damage. Which makes the choice to be a +0.5 average damage for the GW user, in exchange for 1 less AC (assuming the Defense FS for the GW user).

The one-handed & shield option is probably better. But I'm not sure it's "ignore how you envision your character due to inferior mechanics" better.

And switching it up at 4th level, using the Tasha's retraining rules, is certainly possible. But it smacks of that "gamist" approach to character builds which some folks find pretty distasteful (sort of like switching out a subclass for a better one to ride subclasses power curves, but on a lesser scale).

I feel that it is superior even without Duelling, so if it this gamist approach bothers you or the DM, just go with Defense and Shield. Now the odds of a goblin hitting you is 30%, i.e, even if the Goblin wins initiative you are still odds on to kill it without being hurt. If YOU win initiative, you have a good chance of dispatching 2 goblins without getting hurt. Your party's healers appreciate not having to use their very precious and few spell slots patching you up.

Still, if anyone can run some numbers to check my intuition, that would be great.

[Glorthindel]

Yeah, it's why I mentioned "for optimization purposes", I do realize that it clashes with some player's fantasy for the heavy-hitters (though I must say, the guy who starts wearing a shield and later casts it off because he's already tough enough to do without it certainly appeals to me)

That was actually the aesthetic I went with for the Dragonborn Conquest Paladin I played in one campaign; usually went sword and board and acted as a big tough roadblock to anyone heading for the casters, but when something really needed killing, tossed them aside, and pulled out the big weapon.

[stoutstien]

Let's do a comparison for early levels, assuming 16 in primary ability score. Base damage will be one-handed Longsword; 7,5 after stats. For AC, an average base chance of 50% for enemies to hit; assume a +5 to attack rolls on average, thus 16 player character AC. Player accuracy is the same in all cases and thus irrelevant. Encounter: 4 CR1 monsters, one attack each with average 10 damage. Assume Interception is used every round.

Fighting Styles and Equipment:

Greatsword and GWF: 11,33 damage.
Greatsword and Defense: 10 damage, +1 AC.
Longsword&Shield and Dueling: 9,5 damage, +2 AC.
Longsword&Shield and Defense: 7,5 damage, +3 AC.
Longsword&Shield and Interception: 7,5 damage, +2 AC, up to average of 7,5 possible damage reduction.

Conclusion, not accounting for save-based attacks:

Greatsword and GWF: kills enemies 51% faster; total 51% more combat power.
Greatsword and Defense: kills enemies 33% faster, is hit 10% less times; total 48% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield and Dueling: kills enemies 27% faster, is hit 20% less times; total 58% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield and Defense: is hit 30% less times; total 43% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield and Interception: is hit 20% less times, makes ally hit points 23% more effective; total 48% more combat power.

Yes, shields are better for frontline in general against enemies with attack rolls only; but not just because of Duelist. At lower levels Interception is brokenly good, even more so if you use it to help your low-AC party members. It's a taunt-style feature that can force enemies to focus you, starting as early as level 1; this not only improves average party AC via diverting attacks to the tank, it also makes healing more effective for the same reason. Take Interception, make levels 1-3 a breeze, switch to Dueling at level 4 (or keep Interception, it's your choice).

You missed defensive + twf. It's a little funky to calculate due to having an extra chance of dealing any damage compared to 2hd+ defense but a lower min/max damage.

Interception probably beats out defense at low levels but as actions get more crowded and AC scales defense is a nice passive bonus which are pretty rare. It's also the only style that doesn't require a certain weapon/shield load out so for low levels where hand economy is a bigger factor it might be something to weigh.

[Unoriginal]

So, this is more of a question to the more mathematically gifted, but based on play experience. It strongly feels, to me, that before Extra Attack/GWF, the difference between one-handed weapons and two-handed weapons pale in comparison to the benefits of +2 AC. So, even if your plan IS to be a damage-oriented melee build, you should still, for optimization purposes, go Long Sword and Shield (or Spear and Shield if you start with PAM) in tier 1. Seeing both the Paladin and Barbarian being hit regularly and having to spend slots to heal them, just so they can Instakill kobolds instead of just knocking them out feels a horrid waste to me.

The martial versatility rule even allows you to begin with Duelling and switch out at level 4, just when you are about to switch to the heavy hitters. Thoughts?

Monks are hindered by shields, Rogues are not proficient in them, and Barbarians kind of expect being hit so going for the big damage weapons can be worth it.

Otherwise yeah having more AC is in general better than having more damage overall, when your HP pool is small.

[Granitecosmos]

I feel that it is superior even without Duelling, so if it this gamist approach bothers you or the DM, just go with Defense and Shield. Now the odds of a goblin hitting you is 30%, i.e, even if the Goblin wins initiative you are still odds on to kill it without being hurt. If YOU win initiative, you have a good chance of dispatching 2 goblins without getting hurt. Your party's healers appreciate not having to use their very precious and few spell slots patching you up.

Still, if anyone can run some numbers to check my intuition, that would be great.
Assuming that's the Monster Manual's Goblin you're talking about (7 hit points, +4 to attack); assume 16 in primary ability and 16 AC (starting heavy armor or medium with +2 DEX):

Greatsword with GWF one-shots with a 99,69‬% chance.
Greatsword with Defensive one-shots with a 91,66‬% chance.
Longsword&Shield with or without Defensive one-shots with a 62,5% chance.

Taking the Longsword's one-shot chance as base damage:

Greatsword with GWF ends the fight 59,5% faster; 59,5% more combat power.
Greatsword with Defensive ends the fight 46,7% faster, has 12,5% more effective hit points; 65% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield with Defensive has 50% more effective hit points; 50% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield without any relevant Fighting Style has 28,6% more effective hit points; 28,6% more combat power.

It comes down to how well you can stick to enemies. If you gave up your damage so your allies can have more, it might be worth it.

[Unoriginal]

Assuming that's the Monster Manual's Goblin you're talking about (7 hit points, +4 to attack); assume 16 in primary ability and 16 AC (starting heavy armor or medium with +2 DEX):

Greatsword with GWF one-shots with a 99,69‬% chance.
Greatsword with Defensive one-shots with a 91,66‬% chance.
Longsword&Shield with or without Defensive one-shots with a 62,5% chance.

Taking the Longsword's one-shot chance as base damage:

Greatsword with GWF ends the fight 59,5% faster; 59,5% more combat power.
Greatsword with Defensive ends the fight 46,7% faster, has 12,5% more effective hit points; 65% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield with Defensive has 50% more effective hit points; 50% more combat power.
Longsword&Shield without any relevant Fighting Style has 28,6% more effective hit points; 28,6% more combat power.

It comes down to how well you can stick to enemies. If you gave up your damage so your allies can have more, it might be worth it.

The MM Goblin has nice AC but low HPs compared to a lot of low-CR mooks. It's be interesting to make the same comparison with other low-CR opponents like Bandits, Orcs or the like.

[stoutstien]

Monks are hindered by shields, Rogues are not proficient in them, and Barbarians kind of expect being hit so going for the big damage weapons can be worth it.

Otherwise yeah having more AC is in general better than having more damage overall, when your HP pool is small.

Barbarian is one of the classes that is almost always better off using a shield. Resistance and reckless both work better with AC rather than more damage. That coupled with rage being a flat bonus to damage regardless of weapon.

[Granitecosmos]

You missed defensive + twf. It's a little funky to calculate due to having an extra chance of dealing any damage compared to 2hd+ defense but a lower min/max damage.
TWF is impossible to calculate without accounting for player accuracy. Monster DPR and hit points are not hard to account for but monster AC is all over the place. The MM average is around 13 AC for lower CR creatures, that would make double Shortsword's average damage 8,6 with Defensive, 10,4 with TWF.

Longsword Dueling completely outclasses double Shortsword Defense and surpasses double Shortsword TWF since 9,5% more damage is not worth giving up the 11% more effective health and on top of this, Longsword Dueling has much better one-shot potential at low levels and leaves your bonus action. Greatsword Defense has an enormous one-shot potential compared to double Shortsword TWF at low levels, even though its average damage is lower; that and superior action economy means two weapons are viable only if you can't use neither a two-handed weapon, nor a shield. Exceptions are classes with on-hit damage on top of weapon damage and Fighting Style bonuses.

[diplomancer]

Monks are hindered by shields, Rogues are not proficient in them, and Barbarians kind of expect being hit so going for the big damage weapons can be worth it.

Otherwise yeah having more AC is in general better than having more damage overall, when your HP pool is small.

Well, I do mean "for those who have the option of wearing a shield". So yes for Barbarians, no for Monks and Rogues (though I believe that Custom Lineage-Moderately Armored-Dark Vision, with 18 Dex, is a strong contender for "Best Rogue at Tier 1").

A raging Barbarian can take a lot of hits, and it might be a good thing for them to be hit instead of someone else in the party; but with only 2 Rages per day, you are still better off having a better defense at all those other combats. As to Paladins, Rangers and Fighters, at level 1 they have a good chance-about 25%- of going down after being hit by 2 goblins, even assuming a +3 Con; they almost certainly WILL go down if they are hit 3 times. That shield saves lives (or at least slots)

[stoutstien]

TWF is impossible to calculate without accounting for player accuracy. Monster DPR and hit points are not hard to account for but monster AC is all over the place. The MM average is around 13 AC for lower CR creatures, that would make double Shortsword's average damage 8,6 with Defensive, 10,4 with TWF.

Longsword Dueling completely outclasses double Shortsword Defense and surpasses double Shortsword TWF since 9,5% more damage is not worth giving up the 11% more effective health and on top of this, Longsword Dueling has much better one-shot potential at low levels and leaves your bonus action. Greatsword Defense has an enormous one-shot potential compared to double Shortsword TWF at low levels, even though its average damage is lower; that and superior action economy means two weapons are viable only if you can't use neither a two-handed weapon, nor a shield. Exceptions are classes with on-hit damage on top of weapon damage and Fighting Style bonuses.

Depends on how often that 9.5% damage boost removes threats. It's why it gets funky. An extra attack in the early game ,or in the case of interception canceling one out, is much more impactful than what can be penciled out with averages. Dueling has better one shot potential but twf has a chance to do it twice per round depending on the given hp threshold. %. Damage is only relevant when compared to a set value.

[Tanarii]

IMO it really depends what you're doing role wise, and how many melee party members there are relative to open space.



At low levels where you have 1 attack and enemies typically have low HP, the number of hits per kill is very important. A goblin for example has 7HP. A long sword will usually kill it in a single hit but there's a pretty good chance it won't, whereas a great weapon will have a very high chance of killing it in a single hit. A pretty marginal change in damage can make a goblin take twice as long to kill.
Yup. That 10% extra DPR can easily mean 1 less incoming hit as much as the 10% extra armor class.

[Eldariel]

It depends on a lot of things:

- Do you have a free feat from Vuman or Custom Lineage? PAM is likely to prevent way, way more attacks to you and allies than a shield (though you of course have the option of wielding both in Quarterstaff + Shield, but Glaive + PAM is pretty great for cutting down approaching Goblins before they get to hit even, and for making it much harder to bypass you in open spaces).

- What are you fighting? Kobolds are one thing, Goblins another, Ruffians or Brigands yet another. It's pretty likely for a Longsword to fail to kill a Brigand or an Orc in 2 hits and even possible to fail on 3 (so about 5 turns of hitting a single enemy). Assuming 16 in stat but no Dueling, it's about 56% of the time for e.g. a Redbrand Ruffian and 43% of the time for an Orc. Each turn of not killing an opponent is an extra ~1,3 turns for the enemy (as you miss about a third of your attacks), which means a lot of potential pain especially from heavy hitters (Ruffian and Orc are both relatively high damage creatures, Ruffian due to two attacks and Orc due to high Strength + high damage die). I know I'd much rather have that GWF Barbarian against like Babau or Bulezau or even just Redbrand Ruffian (due to the high likelihood one-shot), than one with a shield; two-three hits is a pain but a single good hit is quite doable.

2d6 in particular has a way stronger average tendency than a 1d8 weapon so it's much more reliable to get decent damage numbers out of a 2dX weapon than a 1dX one. Reliability of killing, not just average damage but how the damage spread goes (2d6 has way higher chance of hitting for 6-8 and way above 50% of hitting for 5-9 while 1d8 has an equal chance of rolling 1 or 8 and is 50% to roll under 5 so if you're in a fight where you need to roll above 1 to kill an enemy, you want two dice to make it way, way more likely).

- What's the party composition? What party role are you filling? It's different if you have only one guy with decent AC and a lot of firepower vs. if you have a horde of guys in the frontline. Lots of guys in the frontline, it's more efficient to split up roles and have the DPR types and the shield types and perhaps give the DPR types polearms and have them attack at reach while the Shield guys sit at the front and aim to bodyblock.


In other words, I disagree: there are cases where shield is a good call and there are cases where it's not. This applies especially for Tier 1; lots of variables. I've seen GWFers do great from level 1 but I've seen Sword & Boarders do just fine too (though Protection is kinda mediocre).

[Granitecosmos]

In other words, I disagree: there are cases where shield is a good call and there are cases where it's not. This applies especially for Tier 1; lots of variables. I've seen GWFers do great from level 1 but I've seen Sword & Boarders do just fine too (though Protection is kinda mediocre).
I think a shield is a good idea every time you aren't alone in the front, now that Interception is a thing. It's just that good at low levels, especially if the frontline ally has significantly lower AC than you (3 or more difference). You don't even have to use it every time, since enemies don't have a 100% accuracy. It's also nice for aiding retreating backliners; you can decrease opportunity attack damage and let your ally keep their action.

As for Protection: Interception is what Protection should've been. It's guaranteed to do at least something when you use it, that alone makes it better.

[Doug Lampert]

There's also the point that this is a team game.

50% decrease in damage taken by a sticky frontliner is often better than a 100% increase in damage done by that same sticky frontliner; because the rest of the party is doing something while I block the enemy.

Standing in front of other people 101 is a valuable skill set if you are in a world where it works and you have a high AC.

If the game has a chokepoint (common in dungeons) and Joe Armored can stand there and either take half the hits of another character or deliver double the damage of another character, then a party of four has its effectiveness DOUBLED if he takes the reduced damage and has its effectiveness increased by at most 25% if he goes for the increased DPR (maximum because he may well waste more to overkill if going for damage).

You have to have a way to avoid the 3.x monk problem of being the last one killed while accomplishing nothing BUT being the last one killed. But given a way to be sticky or otherwise force enemies to attack you, AC is really quite good.

[Granitecosmos]

You have to have a way to avoid the 3.x monk problem of being the last one killed while accomplishing nothing BUT being the last one killed. But given a way to be sticky or otherwise force enemies to attack you, AC is really quite good.
Book of Exalted Deeds can easily make the 3.5e Monk godlike and unignorable. But then again, it's Book of Exalted Deeds. I don't know what kind of drug WotC were smoking when they wrote that one but whatever it was, it was so strong that you can actually catch some residual just from reading that crap.

[Eldariel]

Book of Exalted Deeds can easily make the 3.5e Monk godlike and unignorable. But then again, it's Book of Exalted Deeds. I don't know what kind of drug WotC were smoking when they wrote that one but whatever it was, it was so strong that you can actually catch some residual just from reading that crap.

...how? Please don't say Vow of Poverty, because it's one of the classic traps in 3e on Monks (Wealth Per Level gets you more stuff and more importantly, stuff you can't live without like flight). About the only decent VoP user is Druid and maybe Cleric, and even there Wealth by Level is obviously better (it's good for a Celestial animal companion though).

[Willie the Duck]

...how? Please don't say Vow of Poverty, because it's one of the classic traps in 3e on Monks (Wealth Per Level gets you more stuff and more importantly, stuff you can't live without like flight). About the only decent VoP user is Druid and maybe Cleric, and even there Wealth by Level is obviously better (it's good for a Celestial animal companion though).

Let's assume this guy's on the level, and he means Touch of Golden Ice*, which is not insanely broken, but actually is a huge boon to monks.
*Your touch is poisonous to evil creatures. Prerequisite: Con 13. Benefit: Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions for effects**)."
**Golden Ice- type: Contact DC 14; initial: 1d6 Dex; secondary: 2d6 Dex.

[noob]

Let's assume this guy's on the level, and he means Touch of Golden Ice*, which is not insanely broken, but actually is a huge boon to monks.
*Your touch is poisonous to evil creatures. Prerequisite: Con 13. Benefit: Any evil creature you touch with your bare hand, fist, or natural weapon is ravaged by golden ice (see Ravages and Afflictions for effects**)."
**Golden Ice- type: Contact DC 14; initial: 1d6 Dex; secondary: 2d6 Dex.

It is good to have 1 chance on 20 to weaken a lot(Very likely to reduce their ac) or knock out an opponent but I do not think it is enough efficient to make the monk good(unless facing an opponent with that specific save at a low value).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I think I'd probably amend this to say that all melee characters without GWM or PAM should have a shield. (And PAM might be advised to have one around for use with a spear as required).
With GWM you've invested in something that can be a game changer.

[Granitecosmos]

...how?
Saint template and Golden Ice. You can build around it if you want to, it can be pretty good. But I haven't touched 3.x for years (couldn't find willing DMs and at this point I don't even try) so don't ask for details because I honestly don't remember any more than Saint template and occasional 1d6 DEX damage with Golden Ice. Something along the lines of "they'll roll a nat1 save eventually" combined with many attacks.

Anyway, back to the topic. Chokepoints can indeed make a high AC valuable. Generally anything that diverts attacks to high AC characters will be great, especially at lower levels. This is why I really like Intercept. The enemy either attacks you or you cancel half the damage or more at low levels.

[Ogun]

Is there way to using the shield to bash with your bonus action for extra damage?
If not your shield, a kick or head butt?
Would it so unlikely to hit/do significant damage as to be pointless?

[Granitecosmos]

Is there way to using the shield to bash with your bonus action for extra damage?
If not your shield, a kick or head butt?
Would it so unlikely to hit/do significant damage as to be pointless?
Shields aren't weapons so you can't attack with one like that. Monk is the only class that gets access to bonus action unarmed attacks, as far as I remember. As for damage... Well, a non-Monk unarmed strike deals 1 plus STR modifier. This can be boosed considerably with appropriate races, a Feat or a Fighting Sytle. The best you can do is 1d8 at level 1 but that requires both hands free.

[diplomancer]

Is there way to using the shield to bash with your bonus action for extra damage?
If not your shield, a kick or head butt?
Would it so unlikely to hit/do significant damage as to be pointless?

Maybe you could get the Dual-Wielder feat and use the Shield as an improvised weapon, but this is firmly "ask your DM territory". Is an improvised weapon used in melee a melee weapon? Does using your shield as an improvised weapon allow you to keep your shield bonus AND add the 1 AC bonus of the dual wielder feat?

Were I the DM, I'd say yes to the second bullet point of the feat ("sure, you can do an unproficient shield bash as a bonus action for an extra 1d4 with no bonus damage"), but not the first (adding +1 AC on top of it). I'd allow the second because it's horribly unoptimized (I'd also tell the player so, just so he understands what he's doing), but not the first because those stacking bonus can create a problem in Bounded Accuracy.

[KorvinStarmast]

So, this is more of a question to the more mathematically gifted, but based on play experience. It strongly feels, to me, that before Extra Attack/GWF, the difference between one-handed weapons and two-handed weapons pale in comparison to the benefits of +2 AC. So, even if your plan IS to be a damage-oriented melee build, you should still, for optimization purposes, go Long Sword and Shield (or Spear and Shield if you start with PAM) in tier 1. Seeing both the Paladin and Barbarian being hit regularly and having to spend slots to heal them, just so they can Instakill kobolds instead of just knocking them out feels a horrid waste to me.

The martial versatility rule even allows you to begin with Duelling and switch out at level 4, just when you are about to switch to the heavy hitters. Thoughts? The only exception I've seen to this good advice is a half orc barbarian bear totem with a great axe. Anyone else, I agree: use the shield. (Based on my experience). Never seen a monk using a shield, so I can't comment on that 'martial' character.
I think the OP was suggesting that sword & board be enhanced by the Dueling FS (to which all but 1 of the main martial classes have access). That's what I did with my half orc champion; sword and board, dueling fighting style, and later Shield Master feat. Worked very well.

[diplomancer]

The only exception I've seen to this good advice is a half orc barbarian bear totem with a great axe. Anyone else, I agree: use the shield. (Based on my experience).

I just realized the "psychological explanation" for it, I believe. Doing a lot of damage FEELS more powerful and exciting than being missed (i.e, nothing happening). It's even worse if the DM has hidden rolls, then you can't even see when having a shield is making a difference or not.

But believe me, the group healers know.

[PhantomSoul]

I just realized the "psychological explanation" for it, I believe. Doing a lot of damage FEELS more powerful and exciting than being missed (i.e, nothing happening). It's even worse if the DM has hidden rolls, then you can't even see when having a shield is making a difference or not.

But believe me, the group healers know.

Building on that, also why active damage negation, active-and-temporary AC boosts, crit negation or "nope buttons" (e.g. half-orc's racial ability) [seem to] feel better than just a boost to AC even if that boost is mathecatically useful very often.

[stoutstien]

I just realized the "psychological explanation" for it, I believe. Doing a lot of damage FEELS more powerful and exciting than being missed (i.e, nothing happening). It's even worse if the DM has hidden rolls, then you can't even see when having a shield is making a difference or not.

But believe me, the group healers know.
Aye. As DM I always try to let them know if a choice they made was a deciding factor. So if a shield turned a hit into a miss I make sure I tell them. Passive choices should still have validation.

[diplomancer]

Aye. As DM I always try to let them know if a choice they made was a deciding factor. So if a shield turned a hit into a miss I make sure I tell them. Passive choices should still have validation.

Yeah, just including it in the description of the averted attack would make it feel better.

[Misery Esquire]

Less convenient than just PAMing, but; when you're looking to purely play the Killing First Reduces Damage game, if you have a mount, you can (as level one Fighter V.Human*) Two-Weapon Fighting and Dual-Wielder lances and call it a day for DPR. Two d12 + STR hits, ja?

As long as you can manage engagement ranges to avoid disadvantage. ...Or getting unhorsed.

*Maybe other races with Tasha's? Haven't read it.

[mistajames]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Polearm Master with 16 Strength is probably the best attacking feat you get. A lot of stuff in T1 only has a 5ft melee attack, so you trigger that Reaction attack a lot. Basically, compare 1d8+5 (longsword) [9.5 avg] vs. 2*(1d10+3+1)+(1d4+3+.5) [25 avg] against most stuff.

Regarding GWM, a lot of stuff in T1 has low HP. Kill something with GWM and you get your BA cleave. That's a lot of extra damage.

Also, there's the "tanking" conundrum. Build a tanky character and yes, you live longer... but you're also worse at drawing fire and paradoxically worse at protecting your glass cannons/controllers. You need to balance how much you contribute to a fight (to "draw aggro"), and how much punishment you can take. If you put out 2.5x the damage output, you're a lot more pressing target.

Also, your AC doesn't matter if all the monsters are dead.

[diplomancer]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Polearm Master with 16 Strength is probably the best attacking feat you get. A lot of stuff in T1 only has a 5ft melee attack, so you trigger that Reaction attack a lot. Basically, compare 1d8+5 (longsword) [9.5 avg] vs. 2*(1d10+3+1)+(1d4+3+.5) [25 avg] against most stuff.

Regarding GWM, a lot of stuff in T1 has low HP. Kill something with GWM and you get your BA cleave. That's a lot of extra damage.

Also, there's the "tanking" conundrum. Build a tanky character and yes, you live longer... but you're also worse at drawing fire and paradoxically worse at protecting your glass cannons/controllers. You need to balance how much you contribute to a fight (to "draw aggro"), and how much punishment you can take. If you put out 2.5x the damage output, you're a lot more pressing target.

Also, your AC doesn't matter if all the monsters are dead.

PAM is compatible with a shield though; ok, you have a lower reach, but exactly because the baddies' reach is also usually 5 feet you get to reaction attack them before they can attack you.

As for GWM, at level 1... that's a really bad choice; a kobold has 13 AC (which I suppose is about average for level 1 baddies; worse than goblins, better than cultists); with a +5 to hit, that means you will usually kill one every 2 rounds out of 3. With a + 0 to hit, you are hitting them only in 2 out of 5 rounds. Sure, once you do hit them, you have another attack (if there's another close by), but I still don't like the 60% odds of doing nothing on my turn.

Finally, whether it's PAM or GWM, we are talking here only about V. Humans or Custom Lineage, which are not by any chance the only possible racial choices.

Edit: oh, I remembered just now you don't need to take the -5+10 to get the Bonus Action attack; that improves GWM considerably, making it a decent choice, only dependant on having more than one foe around. Still, the racial opportunity cost (and feat opportunity cost) is still something to be taken into consideration.

[stoutstien]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Polearm Master with 16 Strength is probably the best attacking feat you get. A lot of stuff in T1 only has a 5ft melee attack, so you trigger that Reaction attack a lot. Basically, compare 1d8+5 (longsword) [9.5 avg] vs. 2*(1d10+3+1)+(1d4+3+.5) [25 avg] against most stuff.

Regarding GWM, a lot of stuff in T1 has low HP. Kill something with GWM and you get your BA cleave. That's a lot of extra damage.

Also, there's the "tanking" conundrum. Build a tanky character and yes, you live longer... but you're also worse at drawing fire and paradoxically worse at protecting your glass cannons/controllers. You need to balance how much you contribute to a fight (to "draw aggro"), and how much punishment you can take. If you put out 2.5x the damage output, you're a lot more pressing target.

Also, your AC doesn't matter if all the monsters are dead.

Once you mix feats it's a whole new statement because only 2 PC options get a feat prior to lv 4 and both of those have their own pros/cons that need to be weighed if feats are allowed at all.

Then you have to compare those against other feats that are just as impactful during that 1-4 lv range like Inspiring leader, healer, or even shield master (DM ruling depending) for combat or something more general like ritual caster, MI, or observant.

Damage is useless if you are dead. Defense is also cheaper to build as far as opportunity costs goes. Hence the duelist + shield combo being seen as such as good choice. It never fades or falls off and it has solid offensive and defensive capacity.

[kingcheesepants]

Is there way to using the shield to bash with your bonus action for extra damage?
If not your shield, a kick or head butt?
Would it so unlikely to hit/do significant damage as to be pointless?

The shield master feat lets you push people 5 ft with your shield as a bonus action and it also helps a lot with dex saves. So it's worth considering if you're often up against things that are forcing you to make a dex save.

Personally even without a feat or fighting style to support it I like using a shield. +2 AC is pretty clutch in tier 1 especially before you can pick up plate. As you go up in tier you're likely to get better armor and be fighting things that require as much damage output as possible. So it makes sense both from a role playing and gameist perspective to pick up a heavier weapon and fighting style and/or feat to support it. Someone using a sword and shield fighting goblins and bandits and then switching to a greatsword after he's upgraded his armor and is now fighting fiends and elementals really doesn't break my immersion at all, it actually makes a lot of sense that the character would adapt his weapons and tactics (fighting style) to best match what he's up against.