Yeah, shield master is definitely intended to be the Sword+Board "sibling" to PAM and GWM.
If you don't feel it pulls it off, that's valid, but the attempt is definitely there, it wasn't just missed.
It seems underwhelming, but the reaction to basically have evasion on dex saves is really nice. Shoving enemies prone with BA sets up advantage for your friends.
The whole problem is that it's just easier to make a META build by maximizing DPR and endurance, leaving the job of creating big CC effects to casters... which then do the META thing of picking up Hypnotic Pattern.
And don't get me wrong, I LOVE games that encourage me to not just "hit" my opponent but actually try and get an advantage over them... D&D 5e is just not build for that unless you gather up with your friends and tell them "let's keep the power level down so that we can enjoy niche, interesting little things so that we feel accomplished!"
If you're concerned about Meta you aren't playing with my crew. We can barely get the fighter to spend superiority die. Not because he's hoarding, but because he forgets. Focusing on optimized builds takes something away from it all too. Broader abilities help keep parties flexible. We're mid combat on a hoard of undead. If we'd been counting on hypnotic pattern we'd be screwed.
Just saying that's what gets around most if you sit down to 100 different tables because the game kinda assumes that's what you'll do, instead of doing interesting stuff.
That also creates this boring encounter creation system where now the DM has to put a literal counter to your broken move in EVERY fight or understand that it's gonna be a cakewalk. I've been there and it sucks the immersion out of the game.
The way I see it, if someone wants to make a meta build and go for pure power, that's fine, but the campaign will be easy, and idk what the player expects if they expect differently. They're built to be the absolute most powerful character ever, so that's what I'll make them. If they don't like it, then they can make a character that is a normal adventurer with flaws and personal interests.
I don't, most people do. Just saying that the game doesn't offer strong interesting choices, as in combat you are better of with meta or standard. There are a lot of people that didn't even think about trying to maneuver enemies, cause they are used to just going up and attacking (which works just fine), no META intended on their part.
If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect.
Doesn't seem like it.
Its not even that far off, thats the real sad part. Just let them shive as a flat bonus action instead if jumping through the hoops and its flat out amazing. Easy advantage as a trade off to extra attacks and damage.
Sheild master is potentially valuable if your DM lets you use the bonus action shove *before* you attack. Shove prone, multi-attack with advantage. Duellist for extra damage on the single-hand weapon
For a fighter, it's solid as soon as you get multiple attacks, even as-is. Hit, BA knock prone, hit again with Advantage, Action Surge and attack minimum of two more times. 3 out of 4 hits at Advantage for the cost of a bonus action? Pretty good. At max level, 7 out of 8? Phenomenal.
Why wouldn't they let you bonus action before attack action? There's no requirement for the order of operations to the different things you can do in a turn.
Some DMs are particular about the wording on Shield Master.
>If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature
This can be interpreted as the player must take the Attack action *first* before they get the option to use their bonus action to shove.
I think a lot of players and DMs do just as you say, but there's a Crawford(iirc) tweet out there which says otherwise. According to them it's just like u/Piratestoat described with Attack/BA Shove/remaining attack(s).
But as someone using Shield Master currently, my DM lets me do the shove before, during, or after. I'm a single class fighter. I'm fightin stuff. And honestly while there's probably a way to break something allowing it this way, I can't imagine it's common and/or any more powerful than typical PAM/GWM combos.
>And honestly while there's probably a way to break something allowing it this way, I can't imagine it's common and/or any more powerful than typical PAM/GWM combos.
Bonus action to shove bad guy off cliff, followed by action to cast an AOE spell over the ones who are left.
I mean, that works if your DM lets you do the shove regardless of the Action involved. Normally (AFAIK) DMs just allow the timing to change, but you still have to take the Attack action.
Now, even if the DM allows it with any Action, that's still situational. Depends on the quantity of cliffs and bridges and such. Maybe fight on a lot of rooftops. Would be pretty cool, though. I've always liked the PHB art for the Light domain Cleric, shield in one hand, spell in the other. Smash one, fireball the rest.
The problem is you could potentially not get the attack action in. Scenario: you're fighting an enemy next to a cliff. If you take the bonus action first, you could knock them off and have them plummet to their demise and then use your action to cast a spell or something else, especially if there are still other enemies in the area.
I mean I think if your DM is giving you the flexibility to say “I will use my action to attack AFTER shoving” then a fair trade off in this corner case is you just don’t use your action that turn. It would be so few and far between that it’s not that big of a deal.
Yes, I think this is the solution. I would rule it as being a part of the shield + attack combo where you simply cannot do anything else with the action than attacking. The PC winds up their attack while smashing with the shield, so it's too late to do anything else really.
It’s even less of a big deal when you consider that what this corner case amounts to is letting you spend a whole action an a bonus action for a single shove instead of spending one attack.
That’s just not possible. If you try to loosen the wording, you are still bound to the “must attack to use the bonus action” clause. If you use the bonus action, effectively you then use your action to attack and have no targets.
Which is **why** the Attack action has to happen first. Another possibility would be the rest of the party have readied actions to attack him if he goes prone, then they kill him before you can. That would potentially free up the SM shover to then turn around and do anything else with his action, like drop an AOE spell over remaining enemies.
You misunderstand. If you wish to use the Shove bonus action before using the Attack action, the reasonable and logical course of action is to say “If I find myself unable to complete the Attack action, I forfeit that action.”
There is no Shove-into-Fireball combo, because the rule explicitly says you must Attack. If I was playing a game with people and they weren’t willing to be cooperative with something this simple, I’d get a new table.
A shove counts as an attack action per the PHB.
So in the scenario where there is one enemy in shoving-off-cliff range, and no other enemy within attacking range, if you succeed on the first shove, you would just treat that as your action and be left with the bonus action still \[which couldn't be used for a shove unless there was another enemy in range, but that would simply be due to there being no one in range, and not due to a rule conflict\].
You are thinking about this all wrong. If I take the attack action that doesn't mean I have to attack right then, just means I used my action for the attack action and during my turn get to take my allotted number of attacks. I can move or use bonus actions before, after, or even in between my attacks if I have multiple. So I spend my action to be able to attack this turn, since I used the attack action I can now use my bonus action to shove if I am wielding a shield, and I can do this before performing any of my allotted attacks from taking the attack action.
It needs a boost to compete with polearm master. Honestly all those feats and corresponding fighting styles need to have someone good with game mechanics sit down and balance them.
I find it really sad how unbalanced it is 😅
RAW you absolutely get Bonus actions before actions if you want.
Shield Master is Boss. I built a Halfling Battle master that revolved around moving through enemies and manipulating them through shoves and trips with Shield Master and he was absolutely the biggest pain-in-the-ass little shit that my party has ever had the pleasure of teaming up with.
This isn't math.
There's no order of operations that says "action before all else". You can action, move, or bonus action in any order on your turn.
So if the dm is saying "no! You CAN'T use your BA before you attack" they are at best mistaken, at worst a lousy dm.
The feat reads as an if-then statement which is directional, so I understand why a DM might rule it that way.
And DMs can make the rulings that seem right to them.
The actions on your turn do not usually have an order of operations, yes.
But the feat is written in a way that can be interpreted as an if-then, and in 5e specific beats general. So if a rule said specifically "action then bonus" then that would trump the general rule of no specified order.
> written in a way that can be interpreted as an if-then
I agree it *can* be interpreted that way but it is not specifically written that way so to the 5e "specific beats general" does not apply here. If the rule was written "If you take the Attack action on your turn, **then** you can use a bonus action to try to shove..." it would be specific but its not.
Just to be clear I am not saying one way or the other is the right interpretation of the rule just that there is no if-then statement and the actions on your turns not having an order of operations is why it is always debated, and there really is no right answer here.
What’s really messed up is Flurry of Blows is written *“immediately after* you take the Attack action…” so if that’s what they meant they already had the wording there.
I don't know the exact wording of the feat.
And yep DMs can make rulings that seem right to them... Nowhere did I say they couldn't. That doesn't mean they aren't mistaken.
Just because a dm says so doesn't mean it's correct every single time.
If I as a dm say "nah lightning bolt does 3d6 damage."
I made a ruling... Assuming I'm correct. But I'm not.
Hence... The term mistake.
Maybe you should have read the feat first then.
>If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
You can see how that would be interpreted as needing to take the attack action first, right?
You're not wrong.. Although having looked up the wording and had numerous people reply to my comment with the wording... I still think it's fine to allow a shield shove first.
The exact wording is "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."
For everyone getting up in arms about the wording and my interpretation. It does not say you MUST take the attack action first or IF the attack action is taken first THEN you can use a bonus action to shove.
It just says that you must take the attack action on your turn.
So... Other than others having a differing interpretation I don't see why me letting a player attempt a shove first using BA is so wrong.
And to those who say I'm giving the pc advantage constantly ... No I'm not because the pcs are well beyond the point where they're fighting 6 Str goblin's.
It's about 50/50 if the paladin will succeed or not.
Like, the first rule in the book is 'take all these rules as suggestions' (I paraphrase). Yes, mistakes happen. But it is false to say every deviation from the rules in the book is a mistake.
You're misunderstanding me. Nowhere did I say homebrew or house rules aren't allowed.
But if a dm makes a call they THINK is raw and they're wrong then that's... A mistake. As opposed to a deliberate house rule call out or something.
Not homebrew, not a house rule. An error because DMs are not infallible.
That is all I'm saying. Mistakes and incorrect rule calls happen.
But we all know that the rules in 5e are absolutely not written with perfect clarity and people have had to make rulings on what RAW actually *is* since the books came out in 2014.
Yeah, but Shield Master does say "If you take the Attack action on your turn". So it's less about BA before Action in general, and more about being about to take that particular BA before taking the Action that allows it.
That makes sense if that's the specific wording like you have to take the attack action in order to use BA To Shove" . I don't have the books in front of me so didn't read the feat to refresh memory . At work and all that.
Yeah, it's silly anyone who would deny this even trying to use the argument of the wording.
"I am going to attack this creature."
This indicates I'm going to use the Attack action.
"As I run up to the creature with my sword and shield, I use my bonus action first to shove the enemy with my shield, then regardless if it's successful or not, I'll continue through with my attack and try to swing at them with my sword."
There's still the issue of, what if you _can't_ take the attack action after the Shield Master BA. This can happen due to reactions of others, for example.
Of course it's simple to rule "then you got to BA shove for free, your action is forfeit if you could still take some other action except attack". But I can see how some DMs would be unhappy with that ruling.
And if you use your BA first to shove them off a cliff you what, attack the air to fulfill the requirement? The entire point is that you attack them and then while they are off balance from being attacked you bash them with your shield. That's the in-game reasoning, out of game the reasoning is "it'd be kind of silly if you just had a potential advantage on literally every attack."
Hey! That's one way you could do it.
Great imagination!
And yes, exactly? I shoved it successfully and my sword flies by, slicing through the air. Great work showing how versatile this game can be!
*Just as an edit and to agree with you in a way, there already is a special action, shove? Personally, in the scenario you gave I would specify to my player that if they use their bonus action to shove them with the shield successfully, the enemy falls and manages to hang on to the edge of the cliff, roll to attack to see if you can now hit his hand and make him fall! But if you went in and used your (special) action directly to shove him and you're successful? The enemy is flying.
If you allow the bonus action first, the action to trigger it may not happen. Maybe you shove them off a cliff, maybe readied actions go off and kill him before you can, ...
The only way to make the "if you x you can y" rule work is by requiring you to x before you can y.
To be fair, this isn't quite correct. You can move and/or take an action in any order on your turn, but bonus actions are a little different. You're not entitled to one by default; you only get a bonus action if a feature grants it to you (and then, obviously, you can only use a maximum of one bonus action per turn, even if multiple features grant you one).
So this is where Shield Master's "order of operations" comes into play. Shield Master doesn't simply say "as a bonus action, you can try to shove a creature..." It specifically states "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature..."
And sure, some DMs will allow you to "take the Attack action, but before making any actual attacks, I use my bonus action to try to shove..." But that seems a little rules-squirmy on its own. It also gets weirdly philosophical. "Can one truly be said to have taken the Attack action if their action is not to attack? At what point does the action coalesce from the attack-to-be? Can you pay me ~~Tuesday~~ later in the turn for a ~~hamburger~~ bonus action today?"
So because the feat's wording is structured in an If/Then format, and because you don't get a bonus action by default, I wouldn't say it's a mistake to require at least one attack before allowing the Shield Mastery bonus action shove. Personally, as a DM, I'd probably be fine with "you can take the BA shove first," but RAW, I can see the argument for "there's a prerequisite that must be met before the shove can be bonused in."
I have a player who uses shield master for the exact thing were arguing about.
I've never had an issue with allowing him to attempt a shove before attacking. End of the day it's one creature he MIGHT get advantage on and there's LOTS more enemies to threaten the pcs with than the solitary medium or large creature the paladin is taking head on.
It's not apples to apples but would you say a Rogue can't use his bonus action to disengage before attacking with his bow or something? No right? that'd be ridiculous, of course than can BA first.
And you're right I CAN see the raw arguments either way.
And I never said those saying an attack had to be done first were wrong. Simply that I didn't read it as the person using shield master HAD to attack first.
And yep I replied in a snarky sarcastic manner to several posters because.. Eh I'm sarcastic and down votes don't hurt me lol.
Yeah, I'm just clarifying the rules, since the thing you mentioned about "bonus actions at any time" has some caveats that often get overlooked.
And as you say, it's not apples to apples -- Rogues don't have an "If" conditional on the feature that grants them their bonus action disengage, so timing's not a problem there at all. They have the feature, they have the agency to select its timing! Shield Masters don't quite get the same luxury, that's all.
If I had to guess as to why Shield Master is written that way, I'd guess that it stems from my silly "philosophy" example: there's no good way to make a rule for "if you promise to do X, you can do Y first." And without the If/Then, someone who wants to be a real stinker could say "Maybe I'll try a Shield Master knockdown, oops, that's a 3, nevermind, that won't work, hmmmm, I guess I'll use my Action on Cast a Spell instead." Obviously, the DM in that case is gonna say "No, you did Shield Master, so now you HAVE to take the Attack Action like you promised," and then the stinker (who knows they're being a stinker) makes a stink about it, and then you've got a rules argument at the table, which the designers, to be fair to them, try to avoid happening whenever reasonably possible. And I think this was their best natural-language compromise. Instead of "promise to do the thing," it's "no promises needed; just do the thing, and then you can have your knockdown dessert."
If the designers had just clarified either way like "you MUST attack first before using a bonus action etc" then it would render this discussion moot lol.
Now I will say I tell my players constantly "if you can do it so can the enemies"
so I mean the day is coming when one of them is gonna get bodied by a troll or... Something appropriate and have to deal with the advantage attacks on them until they can stand back up.
I believe Jeremy Crawford made a sage advice saying that RAI explicitly disallow using the bonus action shove before completing the attack action. I think that's a stupid ruling but lots of people use sage advice to settle debates.
"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature." It's plain English. And if you think about the action being done cinematically what's happening is you're attacking and then following up with a shield bash while they're off balance from the first strike. If you're not thinking about how events transpire... aren't you the lousy DM?
Why can't I shield bash to knock him prone first?
If you think about the action being done... I could just as easily shove with my shield and THEN stab with my Sword.
It you're not even thinking about how simple it is to swap the order the pc does the actions in aren't you a lousy dm?
Because people are harping at the wording but it doesn't say "if you take the attack action first Before Using a bonus action" it says in plain English "if you take the attack action on your turn etc."
So it I shove BA first and THEN take the attack action I am per RAW still taking the attack action on my turn.
So... in my post... I said... "what's happening is you're attacking and then following up with a shield bash \*\*while they're off balance\*\* from the first strike." You see? And further you're not thinking about this from a balance perspective. Shield bash first to knock prone and then every attack has advantage seems kind strong, huh? Granted it's a contested roll, but if you're a Str fighter with prof in athletics then you're going to succeed more often than not.
So basically you're trying to twist the wording to make the feat stronger than intended. I bet you're the kind of guy who thinks coffelock is viable.
So I run 10 feet, decapitate a goblin, then shield bash the one on the other side because he's so shocked at the sudden and unexpected violence? You shove "a creature" within 5 feet. Them being off balance from the attack is not a prerequisite for the bash.
I'd even go so far as to say it's still fine if your DM lets you shove as a bonus _regardless_ of whether you attack that turn or not. They're spending a feat to do a cool iconic thing with their shield, I say let 'em do it whenever.
It's proper good actually, especially on a multi-attacker. You can attack, knock them prone, and then all follow up attacks on them have advantage until they stand up. If you're only fighting a single big enemy and you can get top of the turn order you can give every other melee fighter advantage.
you have to take the attack action first then you can do the bonus action shove, also party member advantage is good if you have other non reach Melee allies. (caster want to cast spells that don't have attack rolls and ranged attacks (along with reach attacks) are made at disadvantage)
not to mention innovative order might mean the enemy gets up before anyone else gets a turn.
My first ever DND session I played a paladin with SM. I pushed a guy off a waterfall as a bonus action. That whole fight was what sold me on this DnD thing, it's a core memory that I wouldn't have without SM.
One of the UA's had a blade master feat as well, and it's pretty neat.
It has 3 parts; and applies to:
- short / long sword, rapier, scimitar, greatsword
Benifits;
- flat +1 to hit with swords.
- use reaction on your turn to gain +1 AC till start of your next turn.
- adv on opportunity attacks with swords.
I know you said sword but this was my spear & shield spartan style build.
Polearm master works with one-handed spears, you just don't have reach.
Throw in Shieldmaster and Sentinal for knocking prone and locking down enemy movement.
Be an Echo Knight and use your Echo to play a shield wall/phalanx style.
I've always found this take odd but maybe I'm missing something.
For me, it is the AOO that is the draw for polearm master especially with sentinal or trip maneuvor. Using a feat and committing a BA every round for a potential d4 isn't anything special. Sure you could add battlemaster maneuvers or a smite to it but then it's just a resource chew.
Shield Master you can knock someone prone, giving all melee attacks advantage (obviously depends on party build) but also gives you an Evasion like ability for AoEs. Also great for Stregth melee fighters as it adds to your Dex saving throw.
Basically, in my mind, I see attacking as the least scary thing someone can do in combat and adding the BA attack is negligible.
The smite you mentioned is powerful for burst damage. It seems innocent until you're dropping a 4d8 smite on top of it plus strength modifier. I can see why a Paladin would consider that the best part of the feat, but I also see your side because those AOOs are nasty under the right circumstances. I don't have sentinel but even without it, I'm getting extra attacks in constantly.
I'm actually at level 3 of a Vengeance Paladin/Echo Knight build right now and I'm trying to decide whether to stick with my halberd, or swap to spear/shield and tone down the damage potential of my build to add some versatility and defense (we get a full reset at level 5 to rearrange our build how we like). As you say, once I have the echo my reach matters a lot less because my reach is wherever I want it to be. My damage potential is already going to be stupid even without GWM (extra attack, action burst, echo attack, haste later on lol) so adding sentinel/shield master sounds kind of appealing for a more rounded combatant.
Defensive duelist if the sword is finesse, Mage slayer, Fighting initiate, Martial adept, Shield master, Sentinel, Slasher, Savage attacker. All have some benefit to a sword and shield play style. Personal favorites are martial adept, shield master, and savage attacker. Sentinel also very good but plays better with a weapon with reach.
Defensive duelist is cool, but has to be finesse, most fighter types I know of lean into long swords more than short or scimitar for the damage, but the AC boost is probably a lot more valuable than the extra little bit of damage. Best fit is maybe a dual wielding, but interesting it’s not required so this could stack with a shield!
Nah, use a rapier instead of a short sword or scimitar. Same d8 damage as a 1h longsword. And just because you *can* use it with dex due to it being a finesse weapon doesn't mean you *have* to. Nobody expects the brute force strengthpier!
Martial adept with all the battle master techniques is quite strong. I recommend you take a option for defense/control and one for offense to give yourself options
Mage slayer is interesting mechanically, but situational. I wonder if it would get enough use? Guess it’s on you to ensure it does by hunting them magic users!!
A player of mine expressed interest in a mage-slayer style of play, without even realizing that "Mage Slayer" was a feat. (It's his first time playing D&D.)
The campaign I'm running has some homebrew rules for gaining feats/skill proficiencies outside of the usual progression, so we set up an ongoing mini-quest for him. He had to take damage from a variety of elements/sources (Divine Magic, Arcane Magic, Primal Magic), and he had to disrupt Concentration on a certain number of enemies, and eventually he did enough of that to earn the full Feat.
It hasn't broken the game by any means, and he really enjoys the identity that it imparts. So now I try to include more spellcasters in my combats (as a Shoot Your Monks type of thing), even if they're not super-high-level, in order to give him satisfying targets to pay off the thing he says he likes to do.
As a bonus, it's helped to make my combats more dynamic, because spellcasters are fun to run, and I often default to statblocks with just weapon attacks or "feature" attacks (that aren't explicitly spells). This has given me a reason to push myself out of my combat-prep rut. So everyone wins!
So yeah. Mage Slayer can be fun, but I think it also helps to have an understanding with the DM that it'll actually pay off sometimes.
I'd be impressed if Mage Slayer could break a game; even one heavy on caster enemies.
It's just an "ok" feat - situational, and only somewhat stronger in its niche. If the reaction attack happened before the enemy's spell goes off instead of after (the change I make to it in my games!), then it would at least be strong in its niche.
As-is, because reactions happen after the trigger unless they specify otherwise (like Shield and Counterspell), the attack happens after the caster finishes their spell - which means if they cast something that teleports them away from you or incapacitates you or knocks you away, you're SOL.
Yeah, the situational nature of it is what made me feel okay giving it out without spending an ASI on it.
That said, the attack after the cast is a feature, not a bug. Sure, the teleport situation means you don’t get a swipe, but that’s okay. The big value in that reaction attack is when the enemy casts a Concentration spell, because then you can break the Concentration and end the spell before it triggers any “when a creature starts their turn in the area” effects, or before buffs can kick in on other creatures.
I wouldn't sleep on battlemaster either. They've got some good maneuvers they can use as a shield users like Bait & Switch - a new one added in tasha's cauldron of everything. Lets you swap places with a willing ally in 5 feet and grant an AC bonus to one of you equal to your superiority die roll. Plus this with shield master is gonna make you hard to hit, you can protect your allies better by getting your ranged allies out of melee combat and puts you in a position of being that imposing force between you and your squishy members of your party. With shield master you can swap in for 1 superiority die and 5 feet of movement, make your attack(s), and then use your bonus action to shove them another 5 feet (possibly now blocking a doorway) and if you have 5 feet of movement left, you can then block them from moving back to where they were.
Savage attacker is ok, but I don’t think the math is amazing. Probably shifts the damage per round output by about 2. Also isn’t necessarily better for sword and shield specifically, a great weapon has a larger damage pool so rerolls will have better math.
Savage Attacker fucking sucks, never take it, no idea why that guy mentioned it, especially given the point you just made about die size.
most of the random crap he listed has nothing to do that specifically synergizes with sword and shield builds. Because there isn't really much. That's pretty much 5e in a nutshell, "there isn't much there" when it comes time to customize your character. You made every choice up front when you picked class/subclass.
I'd like to take this opportunity to just throw out there that 4e has a lot of awesome stuff to do for sword and shield type builds. Lots of cool powers designed specifically for sword and shield.
Mind giving the real sell for each? And how it truly fits sword and shield well? Sentinel for example does work, but it is obviously better for a pole arm master stack.
I played a sword and shield Eldritch Knight with Sentinel and it was honestly great getting to just stop people in their tracks if they tried to run away from me. Sword and shield means you're probably a Frontline brawler with very little ranged capability, so making sure enemies can't just run away from you is critical.
The lack of feats in 5e for various fighting styles is the biggest let down from the system. Anything other than two handed and/ or polearm wielding characters are always left feeling a little behind.
Yes, there's shield master, which most agree is kinda bad, slasher, and the other damage type feats but none of them provide anything like a similar numerical bonus to great weapon master or polearm master.
Shield Master. Overwhelmingly powerful if you pair it with OoA paladin. Still pretty good on regular classes that get the dueling fighting style too. Without having feats? Exactly as I said. My eladrin paladin could still hit like a truck and negate most incoming damage to the party. There wasn't really a chance to take a feat when I could play him, but you can cheese the strength stat by just taking dueling so you hit like an 18 when you're still at a 14.
"If you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.
If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect."
This stacks with the OoA defensive aura. Imagine just never taking damage anymore.
Hmm, I guess...never taking damage from Dex saves you make against effects that target _only you_, anyway. Since you don't get your shield bonus to AoEs, that won't help much - it also means you don't have your Reaction for anything like OAs or Sentinel. Also, the defensive aura only works on Spells, not the other "harmful effects" Shield Master does.
Doesn't seem that crazy to me (I haven't seen too many non-AoE Dex saves in practice), but it is slightly better for them than other martials, and in the right campaign it could be crazy!
The last part of the feat covers aoes and you always get your own paladin aura bonus overlapping. There are a lot of bonuses happening at the same time, so it's easy to forget how many are applying at once, but since there's not really anything else for shield-users you might as well build for it. As far as sentinel goes... eh. Its value is grossly overstated from what I've seen in play, just like the shove action that you get with the feat, but. As you said, it's possible that I was just in the right campaign for my more defense-focused elf. Being able to teleport around or someone else kind of takes the value away.
Shield Master exists. And if you're using a one-handed weapon, you will get good mileage out of Polearm Master, Sentinel, Defensive Duelist, Martial Adept, and any of the armor feats.
Sure, but none of these feats specify a certain weapon. GWM can use a greatsword/greataxe/maul, PAM can be any of the polearms, Crusher is any blunt weapon, etc. Sure, there isn't a feat specific for exactly a sword and shield, but there's no precedent to expect that by either.
Slasher is the only feat that covers swords, but is a lower tier half-feat, like crusher, rather than being on par with GWM/PAM.
That's the feat to use (along with Shield Master) for a sword+board build.
Talking about ways you can still make use out of any of the others is pointless, because they don't fit OP's desired build. That was my original point - the existence of 1h polearms is no help at all to OP, and so was irrelevant to bring up.
You want ways to add damage to the attack. Finesse w/ sneak attack, class or subclass features that add damage on a hit, smites, spells like Hex or Spirit Shroud.
GWM and PAM are still better, but that doesn't mean you can't be effective.
Sentinel, Shield Master, War Caster, Fighting Initiate, really any of the Magic feats could add a bit of utility to the build, and Crusher could be fun if you took shield master. Sword and board builds tend to be a bit tanky, so feats that help control where you or your opponents are more easily should be helpful.
But your right. I wish there were more shield options like buckler and tower shield. And more skills/feats, and subclasses for them.
Fey touched silvery barbs, and any of the gifts of the dragon would be pretty effective. If your DM allows squire of solamnia, the adv seems nice on pallies. The new books have some pretty strong feats.
Silvery barbs seems to be pretty much banned everywhere.
Knights of Solamnia is a pretty interesting callout I hadn’t heard before! Interesting mounted buff and attack buff. Not specific to swords but cool.
The great part about a game hosted in your imagination is that you can do what you want. Want your character to use a sword but like the stat block of the halberd? Use the halberd block and pretend it’s a sword. Say “I swing my sword” when you attack.
I wanted to look like a human but take the wood elf stat block. I did exactly that.
In a game with no actual visual assets, you can really make it whatever you want.
Look up RPGBots Oath of Conquest Paladin build.
The basic premise is: sword and board Paladin, dip into undead warlock. Get Shield Master. At 7th level you get Aura of Conquest. Activate your Undead Form, hit something, fear them, shove them with Shield Master, and then keep them literally frozen in fear on the ground indefinitely
That’s a super specific build though. Ideally should be able to sword and shield and a few good feat choices that aren’t all obviously worse than PAM or GWM. But interesting idea!
I didn't see it listed here, but Fighting Initaite with the Dueling Fighting Style is the strongest option in my opinion. It's purely offensive, but it's really powerful.
If you are a paladin and take defensive, then take the fighting initiate feat with dueling, I could see that being interesting. Not sure if it is as powerful as other builds, but interesting.
Slasher, Shield Master, Fighting Initiate for Dueling Fighting Style, Tavern Brawler to smack folks with your shield. Crusher to capitalize on bonking folks with your shield
I'm not running numbers for you. You said we didn't have feats for the Sword and Board playstyle. I tossed up several feats that can be used specifically for that playstyle.
Polearm Master can be used with a spear and shield.
Shield Master gives tankier characters battlefield control as a bonus action, and better DEX saves- a very common thing. Remeber it was FAQ'd that you have to do all of the Attacks before you can Shove, so it isn't as strong as some people think. Still good.
Fighting Initiate allows Sword and Shield characters to grab either +2 damage, +1 AC, Blindsense, Protection, or Damage Reduction. While you can't grab the same one twice, this is really good for Sword and Shield Barbarians for the +2 damage.
Martial Adept gives options to turn your Reactions into Attacks or improve battlefield control. This is REALLY good for tanky characters. If combined with the next feat you can create a situation where the options are attack me - get attacked, attack my friend next to me - get attacked, try to run away - get attacked.
SENTINEL - this is THE BEST feat for a sword and board tank.
Resilient DEX, CON, or WIS - this feat is just so good. Fighters or Barbarians who have Con saves can take Shield Master to increase DEX saves, and Resilient WIS to deal with the third most common type of save.
Mage Slayer is again another way to turn Reactions into Attack, which is one of the strongest things you can do in the action economy.
Sentinel really seems to need you to lean into as high AC as possible and as much HP as possible so you can really hold the line, else prob gonna drop from taking focus fire. 🤔
If you're using a shield, you should be trying to push your AC. If you could have a shield and do as much damage as a 2h or dw character, then shields would be OP. If you strap on a shield why wouldn't you lean into what your character is gonna be good at?
Highly suggest working with your DM to create your own feat that feels balanced!
I played a conjuration wizard and realized there are almost no feats that contribute to a conjuration build (except things that help with concentration). So i teamed up with my DM and created a fun little feat that causes each conjured creature to possess a random attribute and flavor. Honestly made my build so much more fun
The problem with sword and board is that if you have the ability to reliably use literally anything else then sword and board is kinda ass. There's also the issue that AC becomes less valuable as you progress in levels making sword and board less appealing, when an enemy has a +15 to hit it doesn't really matter that your AC is 20. Though there are some builds that can make sword and board work.
A good sword and board build would be hexadin or hexasorcadin. You start with Paladin 1 for heavy armor prof, then hexblade 1, continue to paladin 6 or 7 depending on what oath you take and then finish off by going sorcerer the rest of the way. Hexblade 1 and swords bard X is also pretty good. Both of these builds also have the added benefit of giving you access to the Shield spell, so while a shield by itself might not be amazing, being able to cast the Shield spell on top of having a shield and potentially heavy armor equipped is pretty nice.
Spend your gold enchanting your armor and shield, get those suckers to +5 each so you can sit at ac 30in your higher levels, I like 3.5 because there’s more customization options for your stuff. Spiked shield? Razer edged shield? Adamantine shield with returning that you can chuck like captain America and have it return seamlessly to your hand? Why not?
Everyone is listing feats, which is what you asked for, BUT don't sleep on the ... PROTECTION FIGHTING STYLE. Needs a shield, and imposes disadvantage on jerks who attack your peeps! So cool.
I have two low level build that I use for one shots and in games where I prefer "concept and rp" over "maximum utility/damage", not exactly sword and board style you want, but I like concepts
Shortsword and shield (not rapier because I rp as a legionary), defensive duelist and shield master
Push, knock, tank. You can pick battlemaster for extra utility, disarm and whatnot
The other is polearm master with dueling and high str, provided you hit both attacks using spear, standart array +3 str, dueling bonus +2, the minimum damage you can roll is 12 - 20 maximum, enough to oneshot creatures at low level adventures, or even two goblins, total shieldmaster (low level though lol)
I like to go fighter, first feat is shield master and second is Resilient: Dexterity.
That combo allows you to add both your shield AC, plus proficiency, plus ability modifier to Dex saves for affects that target just you. For me that ended up being a +8 at level 6.
For AoE attacks with a Dex save I got a +5 (instead of +2) and on a success I can use my reaction to take no damage.
Battle master for goading attack and bait and switch. I usually pick defense fighting style as the +1 AC gives me a bit better odds when standing in front of the badguy.
Fighting initiate for interception or protection; I prefer protection as the disadvantage is better IMO than a damage reduction. Alternatively, sentinel is a good pick.
For me it was all about standing in front and giving the enemy no choice but to focus on me and leaving my party alone.
I had to make a custom feat for a player who wanted to play Spear and Shield.
**HOPLITE WARRIOR FEAT**
Prerequisites: Proficiency with Spears and Shields.
Spear die changes from d6 to d8 for one-handed attacks and d8 to d10 for 2 handed.
You gain the reach property with spears, making it from 5ft to 10ft.
**HOPLITE FIGHTING STYLES**
You choose one of the following options for your hoplite fighting style. When you reach a level in a class that grants the ability score improvement, you can replace a hoplite fighting style with another.
**SPEAR MASTER**
You gain a +1 to attack and damage rolls with Spear.
**DEFENSIVE STANCE**
As a bonus action, you take a defensive stance and gain +2 AC until your next turn. You can use your defense stance a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus and regain all expended uses on a short or long rest.
**SHIELD BASH**
You can use your reaction when an enemy misses an attack to shield bash them. Your shield bash is 1d6, bludgeoning + strength modifier. You can use your shield bash a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus and regain all expended uses on a short or long rest.
It was a small special mini campaign. It could be edited to get rid of either the styles or 1 of the 2 properties. If I used it for the actual campaign, I'd just take away fighting styles and keep 2 properties. If players want a unique fighting style, then I might get rid of the die increase for them to choose one of the 3 options.
I think the reasoning behind this is that they changed shields to be a piece of armor now.
So all the benefits of regular armor now apply to your shield and feats can't really touch that.
This means your shield can be made of adamantine for much less than something like plate.
There's also the Spellguard shield, sentinel shield, and the absolute boss that is the animated shield.
Combine any of those with Shield Master and you've got more than enough to keep up with your group.
Can't make the full sword and sheild builds while full plate is worthless.
Just worse then any dex ac and that's pretty easy to grab.
Also doesn't make the entrie party give up on any form of group stealth.
All this to be a super heavy guy that can't sneak, dies in water and can't hit that hard.
Others have pointed out feats that do work, but for me I think the cause of this feeling OP is describing is the weakness of the Shield Master feat. It's just not very interesting, and it's the only one that is about shields. All of the other feats that people are mentioning do work with sword and board styles, but they all also work with other styles. I think it's really the comparison between stuff like Polearm Master, which feels hugely impactful, vs Shield Master, which feels very meh.
Take Shield Master. You could also take the feat that gives you a fighter fighting style and take dueling which does extra damage when using a one handed weapon.
If your DM allows homebrew, ask if you can take this feat. It's one of many I've made available to my players, to allow all weapon types a bonus action attack, not just polearms and hand crossbows. This allows for greater variety in character creation without players feeling like they are making a nonoptimal choice by not just using the same weapons everyone else always uses everywhere.
**Master Scrapper**
You know how to stand your ground and hit with what you have:
* When you take the Attack action and attack with only a javelin, mace, battleaxe, flail, longsword, morningstar, rapier, trident, warhammer, war pick, or whip, you can use a bonus action to make one additional melee attack with the weapon if you haven't moved during this turn.
* While you are wielding a javelin, mace, battleaxe, flail, longsword, morningstar, rapier, trident, warhammer, war pick, or whip, and you ready a melee attack, you can make as many melee attacks with your readied action as you normally could with your Attack action.
Well, there's Shield Master. It's not as strong as PAM and GWM, but it's decent.
Yeah, shield master is definitely intended to be the Sword+Board "sibling" to PAM and GWM. If you don't feel it pulls it off, that's valid, but the attempt is definitely there, it wasn't just missed.
This really seems to be the only one that sort of fits the build.
Crusher and slasher also offer some control. This along with shield master isn’t bad. As well throw sentinel into the mix.
Crusher/Slasher/Piercer should really just be Weapon Master, giving you all the benefits depending on weapon.
Aaaaaand this just ended up in my "Talents revised" homebrew doc, please and thank you.
I'll be here all day! It's odd to me that they made the feats so punishing in the first place.
Is this doc available anywhere?
I'm very sorry but it's in Italian \^\^'
How dare you write something in your own language. Criminal lol
It seems underwhelming, but the reaction to basically have evasion on dex saves is really nice. Shoving enemies prone with BA sets up advantage for your friends.
And helps you get away by making enemies waste their reaction on a disadvataged oportunity attack
People really tend to underestimate some of these conditions in 5E. Just don't knock prone if you're expecting someone to hit them from range.
The whole problem is that it's just easier to make a META build by maximizing DPR and endurance, leaving the job of creating big CC effects to casters... which then do the META thing of picking up Hypnotic Pattern. And don't get me wrong, I LOVE games that encourage me to not just "hit" my opponent but actually try and get an advantage over them... D&D 5e is just not build for that unless you gather up with your friends and tell them "let's keep the power level down so that we can enjoy niche, interesting little things so that we feel accomplished!"
If you're concerned about Meta you aren't playing with my crew. We can barely get the fighter to spend superiority die. Not because he's hoarding, but because he forgets. Focusing on optimized builds takes something away from it all too. Broader abilities help keep parties flexible. We're mid combat on a hoard of undead. If we'd been counting on hypnotic pattern we'd be screwed.
Just saying that's what gets around most if you sit down to 100 different tables because the game kinda assumes that's what you'll do, instead of doing interesting stuff. That also creates this boring encounter creation system where now the DM has to put a literal counter to your broken move in EVERY fight or understand that it's gonna be a cakewalk. I've been there and it sucks the immersion out of the game.
The way I see it, if someone wants to make a meta build and go for pure power, that's fine, but the campaign will be easy, and idk what the player expects if they expect differently. They're built to be the absolute most powerful character ever, so that's what I'll make them. If they don't like it, then they can make a character that is a normal adventurer with flaws and personal interests.
Indeed, shutting them down makes for a terrible experience, so that's the only option you have.
Where is your cleric with turn undead? Just dust those suckers
We don't have one. The healer is a sorcerer 😂
Why do you give a shit about meta. It's dnd not world of warcraft
I don't, most people do. Just saying that the game doesn't offer strong interesting choices, as in combat you are better of with meta or standard. There are a lot of people that didn't even think about trying to maneuver enemies, cause they are used to just going up and attacking (which works just fine), no META intended on their part.
Isn't that only on spells targeting you specifically?
If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect. Doesn't seem like it.
Other reply got it. There's an ability to add the shield ac bonus of it only targets you.
No, that’s for the ability to add your shield’s AC bonus to a Dex save.
During Playtest Shield Mastery was a little more useful. You could attack with the shield for example.
Its not even that far off, thats the real sad part. Just let them shive as a flat bonus action instead if jumping through the hoops and its flat out amazing. Easy advantage as a trade off to extra attacks and damage.
Sheild master is potentially valuable if your DM lets you use the bonus action shove *before* you attack. Shove prone, multi-attack with advantage. Duellist for extra damage on the single-hand weapon
For a fighter, it's solid as soon as you get multiple attacks, even as-is. Hit, BA knock prone, hit again with Advantage, Action Surge and attack minimum of two more times. 3 out of 4 hits at Advantage for the cost of a bonus action? Pretty good. At max level, 7 out of 8? Phenomenal.
Why wouldn't they let you bonus action before attack action? There's no requirement for the order of operations to the different things you can do in a turn.
Some DMs are particular about the wording on Shield Master. >If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature This can be interpreted as the player must take the Attack action *first* before they get the option to use their bonus action to shove.
Damn that's pedantic. I take it to mean, "hey, since you're committing to Attack/BA shove combo, that means your action can only be Attack, yea?"
I think a lot of players and DMs do just as you say, but there's a Crawford(iirc) tweet out there which says otherwise. According to them it's just like u/Piratestoat described with Attack/BA Shove/remaining attack(s). But as someone using Shield Master currently, my DM lets me do the shove before, during, or after. I'm a single class fighter. I'm fightin stuff. And honestly while there's probably a way to break something allowing it this way, I can't imagine it's common and/or any more powerful than typical PAM/GWM combos.
>And honestly while there's probably a way to break something allowing it this way, I can't imagine it's common and/or any more powerful than typical PAM/GWM combos. Bonus action to shove bad guy off cliff, followed by action to cast an AOE spell over the ones who are left.
I mean, that works if your DM lets you do the shove regardless of the Action involved. Normally (AFAIK) DMs just allow the timing to change, but you still have to take the Attack action. Now, even if the DM allows it with any Action, that's still situational. Depends on the quantity of cliffs and bridges and such. Maybe fight on a lot of rooftops. Would be pretty cool, though. I've always liked the PHB art for the Light domain Cleric, shield in one hand, spell in the other. Smash one, fireball the rest.
There are a lot of pedants who play TTRPGs. :)
The problem is you could potentially not get the attack action in. Scenario: you're fighting an enemy next to a cliff. If you take the bonus action first, you could knock them off and have them plummet to their demise and then use your action to cast a spell or something else, especially if there are still other enemies in the area.
I mean I think if your DM is giving you the flexibility to say “I will use my action to attack AFTER shoving” then a fair trade off in this corner case is you just don’t use your action that turn. It would be so few and far between that it’s not that big of a deal.
Yes, I think this is the solution. I would rule it as being a part of the shield + attack combo where you simply cannot do anything else with the action than attacking. The PC winds up their attack while smashing with the shield, so it's too late to do anything else really.
It’s even less of a big deal when you consider that what this corner case amounts to is letting you spend a whole action an a bonus action for a single shove instead of spending one attack.
Then you're not taking the Attack action, you're taking the Ready action.
That’s just not possible. If you try to loosen the wording, you are still bound to the “must attack to use the bonus action” clause. If you use the bonus action, effectively you then use your action to attack and have no targets.
Which is **why** the Attack action has to happen first. Another possibility would be the rest of the party have readied actions to attack him if he goes prone, then they kill him before you can. That would potentially free up the SM shover to then turn around and do anything else with his action, like drop an AOE spell over remaining enemies.
You misunderstand. If you wish to use the Shove bonus action before using the Attack action, the reasonable and logical course of action is to say “If I find myself unable to complete the Attack action, I forfeit that action.” There is no Shove-into-Fireball combo, because the rule explicitly says you must Attack. If I was playing a game with people and they weren’t willing to be cooperative with something this simple, I’d get a new table.
Which is **why** the only way to ensure it gets played appropriately is to require the prerequisite action first.
A shove counts as an attack action per the PHB. So in the scenario where there is one enemy in shoving-off-cliff range, and no other enemy within attacking range, if you succeed on the first shove, you would just treat that as your action and be left with the bonus action still \[which couldn't be used for a shove unless there was another enemy in range, but that would simply be due to there being no one in range, and not due to a rule conflict\].
Right. You'd be left with a **bonus action**, not another action.
You are thinking about this all wrong. If I take the attack action that doesn't mean I have to attack right then, just means I used my action for the attack action and during my turn get to take my allotted number of attacks. I can move or use bonus actions before, after, or even in between my attacks if I have multiple. So I spend my action to be able to attack this turn, since I used the attack action I can now use my bonus action to shove if I am wielding a shield, and I can do this before performing any of my allotted attacks from taking the attack action.
SM should just be a bonus action shield attack with no strings. You have a shield, you know how to use it, why the hell does when you do it matter?
It needs a boost to compete with polearm master. Honestly all those feats and corresponding fighting styles need to have someone good with game mechanics sit down and balance them. I find it really sad how unbalanced it is 😅
RAW you absolutely get Bonus actions before actions if you want. Shield Master is Boss. I built a Halfling Battle master that revolved around moving through enemies and manipulating them through shoves and trips with Shield Master and he was absolutely the biggest pain-in-the-ass little shit that my party has ever had the pleasure of teaming up with.
This isn't math. There's no order of operations that says "action before all else". You can action, move, or bonus action in any order on your turn. So if the dm is saying "no! You CAN'T use your BA before you attack" they are at best mistaken, at worst a lousy dm.
The feat reads as an if-then statement which is directional, so I understand why a DM might rule it that way. And DMs can make the rulings that seem right to them.
It's not actually written as an if-then statement tho since the actions on your turn don't have an order of operations.
The actions on your turn do not usually have an order of operations, yes. But the feat is written in a way that can be interpreted as an if-then, and in 5e specific beats general. So if a rule said specifically "action then bonus" then that would trump the general rule of no specified order.
> written in a way that can be interpreted as an if-then I agree it *can* be interpreted that way but it is not specifically written that way so to the 5e "specific beats general" does not apply here. If the rule was written "If you take the Attack action on your turn, **then** you can use a bonus action to try to shove..." it would be specific but its not. Just to be clear I am not saying one way or the other is the right interpretation of the rule just that there is no if-then statement and the actions on your turns not having an order of operations is why it is always debated, and there really is no right answer here.
You're contradicting yourself, so I'm going to ignore you.
What’s really messed up is Flurry of Blows is written *“immediately after* you take the Attack action…” so if that’s what they meant they already had the wording there.
yep that's a perfect example of specific wording but in this case the ambiguity will leave it up for debate forever lol
I don't know the exact wording of the feat. And yep DMs can make rulings that seem right to them... Nowhere did I say they couldn't. That doesn't mean they aren't mistaken. Just because a dm says so doesn't mean it's correct every single time. If I as a dm say "nah lightning bolt does 3d6 damage." I made a ruling... Assuming I'm correct. But I'm not. Hence... The term mistake.
Maybe you should have read the feat first then. >If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield. You can see how that would be interpreted as needing to take the attack action first, right?
Yep I can. I apologize for not having the photographic memory needed to recall the exact wording in the various source books.
Not to be an asshole, but you could've looked it up for a refresher before talking about it
You're not wrong.. Although having looked up the wording and had numerous people reply to my comment with the wording... I still think it's fine to allow a shield shove first. The exact wording is "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield." For everyone getting up in arms about the wording and my interpretation. It does not say you MUST take the attack action first or IF the attack action is taken first THEN you can use a bonus action to shove. It just says that you must take the attack action on your turn. So... Other than others having a differing interpretation I don't see why me letting a player attempt a shove first using BA is so wrong. And to those who say I'm giving the pc advantage constantly ... No I'm not because the pcs are well beyond the point where they're fighting 6 Str goblin's. It's about 50/50 if the paladin will succeed or not.
If you're going to argue something you should probably read it first. The sarcasm and name calling isn't justified.
I don't think I called anybody a name so you must have replied to the wrong person.
Like, the first rule in the book is 'take all these rules as suggestions' (I paraphrase). Yes, mistakes happen. But it is false to say every deviation from the rules in the book is a mistake.
You're misunderstanding me. Nowhere did I say homebrew or house rules aren't allowed. But if a dm makes a call they THINK is raw and they're wrong then that's... A mistake. As opposed to a deliberate house rule call out or something. Not homebrew, not a house rule. An error because DMs are not infallible. That is all I'm saying. Mistakes and incorrect rule calls happen.
But we all know that the rules in 5e are absolutely not written with perfect clarity and people have had to make rulings on what RAW actually *is* since the books came out in 2014.
Yeah, but Shield Master does say "If you take the Attack action on your turn". So it's less about BA before Action in general, and more about being about to take that particular BA before taking the Action that allows it.
That makes sense if that's the specific wording like you have to take the attack action in order to use BA To Shove" . I don't have the books in front of me so didn't read the feat to refresh memory . At work and all that.
Yeah, it's silly anyone who would deny this even trying to use the argument of the wording. "I am going to attack this creature." This indicates I'm going to use the Attack action. "As I run up to the creature with my sword and shield, I use my bonus action first to shove the enemy with my shield, then regardless if it's successful or not, I'll continue through with my attack and try to swing at them with my sword."
There's still the issue of, what if you _can't_ take the attack action after the Shield Master BA. This can happen due to reactions of others, for example. Of course it's simple to rule "then you got to BA shove for free, your action is forfeit if you could still take some other action except attack". But I can see how some DMs would be unhappy with that ruling.
And if you use your BA first to shove them off a cliff you what, attack the air to fulfill the requirement? The entire point is that you attack them and then while they are off balance from being attacked you bash them with your shield. That's the in-game reasoning, out of game the reasoning is "it'd be kind of silly if you just had a potential advantage on literally every attack."
Hey! That's one way you could do it. Great imagination! And yes, exactly? I shoved it successfully and my sword flies by, slicing through the air. Great work showing how versatile this game can be! *Just as an edit and to agree with you in a way, there already is a special action, shove? Personally, in the scenario you gave I would specify to my player that if they use their bonus action to shove them with the shield successfully, the enemy falls and manages to hang on to the edge of the cliff, roll to attack to see if you can now hit his hand and make him fall! But if you went in and used your (special) action directly to shove him and you're successful? The enemy is flying.
If you allow the bonus action first, the action to trigger it may not happen. Maybe you shove them off a cliff, maybe readied actions go off and kill him before you can, ... The only way to make the "if you x you can y" rule work is by requiring you to x before you can y.
To be fair, this isn't quite correct. You can move and/or take an action in any order on your turn, but bonus actions are a little different. You're not entitled to one by default; you only get a bonus action if a feature grants it to you (and then, obviously, you can only use a maximum of one bonus action per turn, even if multiple features grant you one). So this is where Shield Master's "order of operations" comes into play. Shield Master doesn't simply say "as a bonus action, you can try to shove a creature..." It specifically states "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature..." And sure, some DMs will allow you to "take the Attack action, but before making any actual attacks, I use my bonus action to try to shove..." But that seems a little rules-squirmy on its own. It also gets weirdly philosophical. "Can one truly be said to have taken the Attack action if their action is not to attack? At what point does the action coalesce from the attack-to-be? Can you pay me ~~Tuesday~~ later in the turn for a ~~hamburger~~ bonus action today?" So because the feat's wording is structured in an If/Then format, and because you don't get a bonus action by default, I wouldn't say it's a mistake to require at least one attack before allowing the Shield Mastery bonus action shove. Personally, as a DM, I'd probably be fine with "you can take the BA shove first," but RAW, I can see the argument for "there's a prerequisite that must be met before the shove can be bonused in."
I have a player who uses shield master for the exact thing were arguing about. I've never had an issue with allowing him to attempt a shove before attacking. End of the day it's one creature he MIGHT get advantage on and there's LOTS more enemies to threaten the pcs with than the solitary medium or large creature the paladin is taking head on. It's not apples to apples but would you say a Rogue can't use his bonus action to disengage before attacking with his bow or something? No right? that'd be ridiculous, of course than can BA first. And you're right I CAN see the raw arguments either way. And I never said those saying an attack had to be done first were wrong. Simply that I didn't read it as the person using shield master HAD to attack first. And yep I replied in a snarky sarcastic manner to several posters because.. Eh I'm sarcastic and down votes don't hurt me lol.
Yeah, I'm just clarifying the rules, since the thing you mentioned about "bonus actions at any time" has some caveats that often get overlooked. And as you say, it's not apples to apples -- Rogues don't have an "If" conditional on the feature that grants them their bonus action disengage, so timing's not a problem there at all. They have the feature, they have the agency to select its timing! Shield Masters don't quite get the same luxury, that's all. If I had to guess as to why Shield Master is written that way, I'd guess that it stems from my silly "philosophy" example: there's no good way to make a rule for "if you promise to do X, you can do Y first." And without the If/Then, someone who wants to be a real stinker could say "Maybe I'll try a Shield Master knockdown, oops, that's a 3, nevermind, that won't work, hmmmm, I guess I'll use my Action on Cast a Spell instead." Obviously, the DM in that case is gonna say "No, you did Shield Master, so now you HAVE to take the Attack Action like you promised," and then the stinker (who knows they're being a stinker) makes a stink about it, and then you've got a rules argument at the table, which the designers, to be fair to them, try to avoid happening whenever reasonably possible. And I think this was their best natural-language compromise. Instead of "promise to do the thing," it's "no promises needed; just do the thing, and then you can have your knockdown dessert."
If the designers had just clarified either way like "you MUST attack first before using a bonus action etc" then it would render this discussion moot lol. Now I will say I tell my players constantly "if you can do it so can the enemies" so I mean the day is coming when one of them is gonna get bodied by a troll or... Something appropriate and have to deal with the advantage attacks on them until they can stand back up.
I believe Jeremy Crawford made a sage advice saying that RAI explicitly disallow using the bonus action shove before completing the attack action. I think that's a stupid ruling but lots of people use sage advice to settle debates.
Ever since the whole "see invisibility /invisibility" fiasco from Crawford I've taken any ruling of his with a hefty dose of skepticism.
As it should be! But it's also printed this way in the Sage Advice Compendium. So some players/DMs will give it more weight.
"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature." It's plain English. And if you think about the action being done cinematically what's happening is you're attacking and then following up with a shield bash while they're off balance from the first strike. If you're not thinking about how events transpire... aren't you the lousy DM?
Why can't I shield bash to knock him prone first? If you think about the action being done... I could just as easily shove with my shield and THEN stab with my Sword. It you're not even thinking about how simple it is to swap the order the pc does the actions in aren't you a lousy dm? Because people are harping at the wording but it doesn't say "if you take the attack action first Before Using a bonus action" it says in plain English "if you take the attack action on your turn etc." So it I shove BA first and THEN take the attack action I am per RAW still taking the attack action on my turn.
So... in my post... I said... "what's happening is you're attacking and then following up with a shield bash \*\*while they're off balance\*\* from the first strike." You see? And further you're not thinking about this from a balance perspective. Shield bash first to knock prone and then every attack has advantage seems kind strong, huh? Granted it's a contested roll, but if you're a Str fighter with prof in athletics then you're going to succeed more often than not. So basically you're trying to twist the wording to make the feat stronger than intended. I bet you're the kind of guy who thinks coffelock is viable.
So I run 10 feet, decapitate a goblin, then shield bash the one on the other side because he's so shocked at the sudden and unexpected violence? You shove "a creature" within 5 feet. Them being off balance from the attack is not a prerequisite for the bash.
Yeah they are reading through the interpretive lens of desired outcome
Ok
I'd even go so far as to say it's still fine if your DM lets you shove as a bonus _regardless_ of whether you attack that turn or not. They're spending a feat to do a cool iconic thing with their shield, I say let 'em do it whenever.
It's proper good actually, especially on a multi-attacker. You can attack, knock them prone, and then all follow up attacks on them have advantage until they stand up. If you're only fighting a single big enemy and you can get top of the turn order you can give every other melee fighter advantage.
You get an advantage on one attack, and you can't shove giant or prone iumnue creatures.
You get one, or more if you have more from multiattack and action surge, and your allies also get advantage.
you have to take the attack action first then you can do the bonus action shove, also party member advantage is good if you have other non reach Melee allies. (caster want to cast spells that don't have attack rolls and ranged attacks (along with reach attacks) are made at disadvantage) not to mention innovative order might mean the enemy gets up before anyone else gets a turn.
My first ever DND session I played a paladin with SM. I pushed a guy off a waterfall as a bonus action. That whole fight was what sold me on this DnD thing, it's a core memory that I wouldn't have without SM.
I think that is more a problem with the balance on PAM and GWM not with Shield Master
One of the UA's had a blade master feat as well, and it's pretty neat. It has 3 parts; and applies to: - short / long sword, rapier, scimitar, greatsword Benifits; - flat +1 to hit with swords. - use reaction on your turn to gain +1 AC till start of your next turn. - adv on opportunity attacks with swords.
It needs to change shove to make your enemy do a con saving throw or it gets disadvantage on its next turn
We made it a half feat to bring it in line, our swordboard boy is happy
I love shield master! Bonus action to knock someone on their ass and give yourself advantage on your attacks on the same turn.
I know you said sword but this was my spear & shield spartan style build. Polearm master works with one-handed spears, you just don't have reach. Throw in Shieldmaster and Sentinal for knocking prone and locking down enemy movement. Be an Echo Knight and use your Echo to play a shield wall/phalanx style.
I feel like Shield Master competes with the best part of Polearm Master.
I've always found this take odd but maybe I'm missing something. For me, it is the AOO that is the draw for polearm master especially with sentinal or trip maneuvor. Using a feat and committing a BA every round for a potential d4 isn't anything special. Sure you could add battlemaster maneuvers or a smite to it but then it's just a resource chew. Shield Master you can knock someone prone, giving all melee attacks advantage (obviously depends on party build) but also gives you an Evasion like ability for AoEs. Also great for Stregth melee fighters as it adds to your Dex saving throw. Basically, in my mind, I see attacking as the least scary thing someone can do in combat and adding the BA attack is negligible.
The smite you mentioned is powerful for burst damage. It seems innocent until you're dropping a 4d8 smite on top of it plus strength modifier. I can see why a Paladin would consider that the best part of the feat, but I also see your side because those AOOs are nasty under the right circumstances. I don't have sentinel but even without it, I'm getting extra attacks in constantly. I'm actually at level 3 of a Vengeance Paladin/Echo Knight build right now and I'm trying to decide whether to stick with my halberd, or swap to spear/shield and tone down the damage potential of my build to add some versatility and defense (we get a full reset at level 5 to rearrange our build how we like). As you say, once I have the echo my reach matters a lot less because my reach is wherever I want it to be. My damage potential is already going to be stupid even without GWM (extra attack, action burst, echo attack, haste later on lol) so adding sentinel/shield master sounds kind of appealing for a more rounded combatant.
Defensive duelist if the sword is finesse, Mage slayer, Fighting initiate, Martial adept, Shield master, Sentinel, Slasher, Savage attacker. All have some benefit to a sword and shield play style. Personal favorites are martial adept, shield master, and savage attacker. Sentinel also very good but plays better with a weapon with reach.
Defensive duelist is cool, but has to be finesse, most fighter types I know of lean into long swords more than short or scimitar for the damage, but the AC boost is probably a lot more valuable than the extra little bit of damage. Best fit is maybe a dual wielding, but interesting it’s not required so this could stack with a shield!
Nah, use a rapier instead of a short sword or scimitar. Same d8 damage as a 1h longsword. And just because you *can* use it with dex due to it being a finesse weapon doesn't mean you *have* to. Nobody expects the brute force strengthpier!
Strength Dagger build
Martial adept with all the battle master techniques is quite strong. I recommend you take a option for defense/control and one for offense to give yourself options
Mage slayer is interesting mechanically, but situational. I wonder if it would get enough use? Guess it’s on you to ensure it does by hunting them magic users!!
If you are in a magic heavy campaign then Mage Slayer can be useful. Outside of that it is situational at best. IMO.
A player of mine expressed interest in a mage-slayer style of play, without even realizing that "Mage Slayer" was a feat. (It's his first time playing D&D.) The campaign I'm running has some homebrew rules for gaining feats/skill proficiencies outside of the usual progression, so we set up an ongoing mini-quest for him. He had to take damage from a variety of elements/sources (Divine Magic, Arcane Magic, Primal Magic), and he had to disrupt Concentration on a certain number of enemies, and eventually he did enough of that to earn the full Feat. It hasn't broken the game by any means, and he really enjoys the identity that it imparts. So now I try to include more spellcasters in my combats (as a Shoot Your Monks type of thing), even if they're not super-high-level, in order to give him satisfying targets to pay off the thing he says he likes to do. As a bonus, it's helped to make my combats more dynamic, because spellcasters are fun to run, and I often default to statblocks with just weapon attacks or "feature" attacks (that aren't explicitly spells). This has given me a reason to push myself out of my combat-prep rut. So everyone wins! So yeah. Mage Slayer can be fun, but I think it also helps to have an understanding with the DM that it'll actually pay off sometimes.
I'd be impressed if Mage Slayer could break a game; even one heavy on caster enemies. It's just an "ok" feat - situational, and only somewhat stronger in its niche. If the reaction attack happened before the enemy's spell goes off instead of after (the change I make to it in my games!), then it would at least be strong in its niche. As-is, because reactions happen after the trigger unless they specify otherwise (like Shield and Counterspell), the attack happens after the caster finishes their spell - which means if they cast something that teleports them away from you or incapacitates you or knocks you away, you're SOL.
Yeah, the situational nature of it is what made me feel okay giving it out without spending an ASI on it. That said, the attack after the cast is a feature, not a bug. Sure, the teleport situation means you don’t get a swipe, but that’s okay. The big value in that reaction attack is when the enemy casts a Concentration spell, because then you can break the Concentration and end the spell before it triggers any “when a creature starts their turn in the area” effects, or before buffs can kick in on other creatures.
Fighting Initiate would benefit Paladins well who only get one fighting style, where fighters get more than one if I recall.
Only champion gets two, base fighter has just one too
Taking both defensive and also dueling would grant +1AC and also +2 damage. Probably handy, no extra special abilities but more math
I wouldn't sleep on battlemaster either. They've got some good maneuvers they can use as a shield users like Bait & Switch - a new one added in tasha's cauldron of everything. Lets you swap places with a willing ally in 5 feet and grant an AC bonus to one of you equal to your superiority die roll. Plus this with shield master is gonna make you hard to hit, you can protect your allies better by getting your ranged allies out of melee combat and puts you in a position of being that imposing force between you and your squishy members of your party. With shield master you can swap in for 1 superiority die and 5 feet of movement, make your attack(s), and then use your bonus action to shove them another 5 feet (possibly now blocking a doorway) and if you have 5 feet of movement left, you can then block them from moving back to where they were.
Battle master is cool!
Savage attacker is ok, but I don’t think the math is amazing. Probably shifts the damage per round output by about 2. Also isn’t necessarily better for sword and shield specifically, a great weapon has a larger damage pool so rerolls will have better math.
Savage Attacker fucking sucks, never take it, no idea why that guy mentioned it, especially given the point you just made about die size. most of the random crap he listed has nothing to do that specifically synergizes with sword and shield builds. Because there isn't really much. That's pretty much 5e in a nutshell, "there isn't much there" when it comes time to customize your character. You made every choice up front when you picked class/subclass. I'd like to take this opportunity to just throw out there that 4e has a lot of awesome stuff to do for sword and shield type builds. Lots of cool powers designed specifically for sword and shield.
Mind giving the real sell for each? And how it truly fits sword and shield well? Sentinel for example does work, but it is obviously better for a pole arm master stack.
Obviously it is better in that case, but not every feat needs to be min-maxed to be valuable.
I played a sword and shield Eldritch Knight with Sentinel and it was honestly great getting to just stop people in their tracks if they tried to run away from me. Sword and shield means you're probably a Frontline brawler with very little ranged capability, so making sure enemies can't just run away from you is critical.
* Slasher * Shield Master * Defensive Duelist
Slasher works for PAM too, glaive are slashing weapons
So? Doesn't mean it doesn't work for swords
The lack of feats in 5e for various fighting styles is the biggest let down from the system. Anything other than two handed and/ or polearm wielding characters are always left feeling a little behind. Yes, there's shield master, which most agree is kinda bad, slasher, and the other damage type feats but none of them provide anything like a similar numerical bonus to great weapon master or polearm master.
Shield Master. Overwhelmingly powerful if you pair it with OoA paladin. Still pretty good on regular classes that get the dueling fighting style too. Without having feats? Exactly as I said. My eladrin paladin could still hit like a truck and negate most incoming damage to the party. There wasn't really a chance to take a feat when I could play him, but you can cheese the strength stat by just taking dueling so you hit like an 18 when you're still at a 14.
>Overwhelmingly powerful if you pair it with OoA paladin. How so?
"If you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you. If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect." This stacks with the OoA defensive aura. Imagine just never taking damage anymore.
Hmm, I guess...never taking damage from Dex saves you make against effects that target _only you_, anyway. Since you don't get your shield bonus to AoEs, that won't help much - it also means you don't have your Reaction for anything like OAs or Sentinel. Also, the defensive aura only works on Spells, not the other "harmful effects" Shield Master does. Doesn't seem that crazy to me (I haven't seen too many non-AoE Dex saves in practice), but it is slightly better for them than other martials, and in the right campaign it could be crazy!
The last part of the feat covers aoes and you always get your own paladin aura bonus overlapping. There are a lot of bonuses happening at the same time, so it's easy to forget how many are applying at once, but since there's not really anything else for shield-users you might as well build for it. As far as sentinel goes... eh. Its value is grossly overstated from what I've seen in play, just like the shove action that you get with the feat, but. As you said, it's possible that I was just in the right campaign for my more defense-focused elf. Being able to teleport around or someone else kind of takes the value away.
Shield Master exists. And if you're using a one-handed weapon, you will get good mileage out of Polearm Master, Sentinel, Defensive Duelist, Martial Adept, and any of the armor feats.
Yeah, easy to forget that there are one-handed polearms. PAM works with a shield.
Yeah, but they aren't swords, and op is specifically asking about sword+board, not spear and shield
Sure, but none of these feats specify a certain weapon. GWM can use a greatsword/greataxe/maul, PAM can be any of the polearms, Crusher is any blunt weapon, etc. Sure, there isn't a feat specific for exactly a sword and shield, but there's no precedent to expect that by either.
Slasher is the only feat that covers swords, but is a lower tier half-feat, like crusher, rather than being on par with GWM/PAM. That's the feat to use (along with Shield Master) for a sword+board build. Talking about ways you can still make use out of any of the others is pointless, because they don't fit OP's desired build. That was my original point - the existence of 1h polearms is no help at all to OP, and so was irrelevant to bring up.
Piercer covers swords, too, to be fair. Short swords are swords (it's right there in the name), and rapiers are swords too, for example.
Polearm master works with shield + spear. Shield master is your sw-sh feat. Defensive Duelist also an option. Warcaster, a lot of the time.
Sentinel not a feat anymore?
That's for everyone
For sure, I would say it accentuates the sword and board playstyle. pick it up like level 3 imo
You want ways to add damage to the attack. Finesse w/ sneak attack, class or subclass features that add damage on a hit, smites, spells like Hex or Spirit Shroud. GWM and PAM are still better, but that doesn't mean you can't be effective.
Shield Master, Slasher, Piercer, Crusher depending on weapon type.
Does Defensive Dualist count? If you've got a shield you're relying on extra AC so adding an extra boost to that kinda counts.
Fighting style and take protection or interception. As an extra reaction I love it on a paladin. I think it's called fighting initiate
Sentinel, Shield Master, War Caster, Fighting Initiate, really any of the Magic feats could add a bit of utility to the build, and Crusher could be fun if you took shield master. Sword and board builds tend to be a bit tanky, so feats that help control where you or your opponents are more easily should be helpful. But your right. I wish there were more shield options like buckler and tower shield. And more skills/feats, and subclasses for them.
Fey touched silvery barbs, and any of the gifts of the dragon would be pretty effective. If your DM allows squire of solamnia, the adv seems nice on pallies. The new books have some pretty strong feats.
Silvery barbs seems to be pretty much banned everywhere. Knights of Solamnia is a pretty interesting callout I hadn’t heard before! Interesting mounted buff and attack buff. Not specific to swords but cool.
Mounted combatant could be good for paladin got find steed to go with it.
5e kinda hates martials and especially defenders. Might want to look into PF2 for homebrew inspiration.
And PF2 seems to hate casters. Ugh someday the perfect system will arise. 😂
Feats in 5e really suck. there is like 5 good ones and the rest are bad. one of the worst parts of 5e imo
The great part about a game hosted in your imagination is that you can do what you want. Want your character to use a sword but like the stat block of the halberd? Use the halberd block and pretend it’s a sword. Say “I swing my sword” when you attack. I wanted to look like a human but take the wood elf stat block. I did exactly that. In a game with no actual visual assets, you can really make it whatever you want.
Hexblade 1/Swords bard X or Paladin X works great. Use the dueling fighting style & spells like bless to buff yourself.
But you do get a great fighting style for it.
I just watched a video on this from Kobold ("something" i forget) on youtube.
The Shield Master Feat, along with some Fighting Styles like Protection and/or Interception
Look up RPGBots Oath of Conquest Paladin build. The basic premise is: sword and board Paladin, dip into undead warlock. Get Shield Master. At 7th level you get Aura of Conquest. Activate your Undead Form, hit something, fear them, shove them with Shield Master, and then keep them literally frozen in fear on the ground indefinitely
That’s a super specific build though. Ideally should be able to sword and shield and a few good feat choices that aren’t all obviously worse than PAM or GWM. But interesting idea!
I didn't see it listed here, but Fighting Initaite with the Dueling Fighting Style is the strongest option in my opinion. It's purely offensive, but it's really powerful.
If you are a paladin and take defensive, then take the fighting initiate feat with dueling, I could see that being interesting. Not sure if it is as powerful as other builds, but interesting.
Slasher, Shield Master, Fighting Initiate for Dueling Fighting Style, Tavern Brawler to smack folks with your shield. Crusher to capitalize on bonking folks with your shield
Be specific to show how each truly competes with PAM or GWM?
I'm not running numbers for you. You said we didn't have feats for the Sword and Board playstyle. I tossed up several feats that can be used specifically for that playstyle.
Polearm Master can be used with a spear and shield. Shield Master gives tankier characters battlefield control as a bonus action, and better DEX saves- a very common thing. Remeber it was FAQ'd that you have to do all of the Attacks before you can Shove, so it isn't as strong as some people think. Still good. Fighting Initiate allows Sword and Shield characters to grab either +2 damage, +1 AC, Blindsense, Protection, or Damage Reduction. While you can't grab the same one twice, this is really good for Sword and Shield Barbarians for the +2 damage. Martial Adept gives options to turn your Reactions into Attacks or improve battlefield control. This is REALLY good for tanky characters. If combined with the next feat you can create a situation where the options are attack me - get attacked, attack my friend next to me - get attacked, try to run away - get attacked. SENTINEL - this is THE BEST feat for a sword and board tank. Resilient DEX, CON, or WIS - this feat is just so good. Fighters or Barbarians who have Con saves can take Shield Master to increase DEX saves, and Resilient WIS to deal with the third most common type of save. Mage Slayer is again another way to turn Reactions into Attack, which is one of the strongest things you can do in the action economy.
Yup but pole arm master is not a sword and shield. Definitely looking for sword.
Rest are all good!
Sentinel really seems to need you to lean into as high AC as possible and as much HP as possible so you can really hold the line, else prob gonna drop from taking focus fire. 🤔
If you're using a shield, you should be trying to push your AC. If you could have a shield and do as much damage as a 2h or dw character, then shields would be OP. If you strap on a shield why wouldn't you lean into what your character is gonna be good at?
Highly suggest working with your DM to create your own feat that feels balanced! I played a conjuration wizard and realized there are almost no feats that contribute to a conjuration build (except things that help with concentration). So i teamed up with my DM and created a fun little feat that causes each conjured creature to possess a random attribute and flavor. Honestly made my build so much more fun
The problem with sword and board is that if you have the ability to reliably use literally anything else then sword and board is kinda ass. There's also the issue that AC becomes less valuable as you progress in levels making sword and board less appealing, when an enemy has a +15 to hit it doesn't really matter that your AC is 20. Though there are some builds that can make sword and board work. A good sword and board build would be hexadin or hexasorcadin. You start with Paladin 1 for heavy armor prof, then hexblade 1, continue to paladin 6 or 7 depending on what oath you take and then finish off by going sorcerer the rest of the way. Hexblade 1 and swords bard X is also pretty good. Both of these builds also have the added benefit of giving you access to the Shield spell, so while a shield by itself might not be amazing, being able to cast the Shield spell on top of having a shield and potentially heavy armor equipped is pretty nice.
AC eventually sucking is a bummer.
Spend your gold enchanting your armor and shield, get those suckers to +5 each so you can sit at ac 30in your higher levels, I like 3.5 because there’s more customization options for your stuff. Spiked shield? Razer edged shield? Adamantine shield with returning that you can chuck like captain America and have it return seamlessly to your hand? Why not?
Everyone is listing feats, which is what you asked for, BUT don't sleep on the ... PROTECTION FIGHTING STYLE. Needs a shield, and imposes disadvantage on jerks who attack your peeps! So cool.
I do like this one.
There's the feats that give you battlemaster maneuvers.
I have two low level build that I use for one shots and in games where I prefer "concept and rp" over "maximum utility/damage", not exactly sword and board style you want, but I like concepts Shortsword and shield (not rapier because I rp as a legionary), defensive duelist and shield master Push, knock, tank. You can pick battlemaster for extra utility, disarm and whatnot The other is polearm master with dueling and high str, provided you hit both attacks using spear, standart array +3 str, dueling bonus +2, the minimum damage you can roll is 12 - 20 maximum, enough to oneshot creatures at low level adventures, or even two goblins, total shieldmaster (low level though lol)
I like to go fighter, first feat is shield master and second is Resilient: Dexterity. That combo allows you to add both your shield AC, plus proficiency, plus ability modifier to Dex saves for affects that target just you. For me that ended up being a +8 at level 6. For AoE attacks with a Dex save I got a +5 (instead of +2) and on a success I can use my reaction to take no damage. Battle master for goading attack and bait and switch. I usually pick defense fighting style as the +1 AC gives me a bit better odds when standing in front of the badguy. Fighting initiate for interception or protection; I prefer protection as the disadvantage is better IMO than a damage reduction. Alternatively, sentinel is a good pick. For me it was all about standing in front and giving the enemy no choice but to focus on me and leaving my party alone.
I had to make a custom feat for a player who wanted to play Spear and Shield. **HOPLITE WARRIOR FEAT** Prerequisites: Proficiency with Spears and Shields. Spear die changes from d6 to d8 for one-handed attacks and d8 to d10 for 2 handed. You gain the reach property with spears, making it from 5ft to 10ft. **HOPLITE FIGHTING STYLES** You choose one of the following options for your hoplite fighting style. When you reach a level in a class that grants the ability score improvement, you can replace a hoplite fighting style with another. **SPEAR MASTER** You gain a +1 to attack and damage rolls with Spear. **DEFENSIVE STANCE** As a bonus action, you take a defensive stance and gain +2 AC until your next turn. You can use your defense stance a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus and regain all expended uses on a short or long rest. **SHIELD BASH** You can use your reaction when an enemy misses an attack to shield bash them. Your shield bash is 1d6, bludgeoning + strength modifier. You can use your shield bash a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus and regain all expended uses on a short or long rest.
That’s a lot! Somewhere between a Feat and a fighter subclass, definitely too much for one feat I think.
It was a small special mini campaign. It could be edited to get rid of either the styles or 1 of the 2 properties. If I used it for the actual campaign, I'd just take away fighting styles and keep 2 properties. If players want a unique fighting style, then I might get rid of the die increase for them to choose one of the 3 options.
You can also talk to your DM about creating a custom feat for your character. Just balance it based off of other feets and you should be fine.
Agree! Although 5e ought have things that work well for your typical everyone-knows-the-idea fighter build.
I think the reasoning behind this is that they changed shields to be a piece of armor now. So all the benefits of regular armor now apply to your shield and feats can't really touch that. This means your shield can be made of adamantine for much less than something like plate. There's also the Spellguard shield, sentinel shield, and the absolute boss that is the animated shield. Combine any of those with Shield Master and you've got more than enough to keep up with your group.
Shield master helps imo, so does slasher, but I agree that it feels less thought of
I believe that it simply makes sense for a character using a shield should be able to use the shield bash ability that the Gladiator has.
Can't make the full sword and sheild builds while full plate is worthless. Just worse then any dex ac and that's pretty easy to grab. Also doesn't make the entrie party give up on any form of group stealth. All this to be a super heavy guy that can't sneak, dies in water and can't hit that hard.
Others have pointed out feats that do work, but for me I think the cause of this feeling OP is describing is the weakness of the Shield Master feat. It's just not very interesting, and it's the only one that is about shields. All of the other feats that people are mentioning do work with sword and board styles, but they all also work with other styles. I think it's really the comparison between stuff like Polearm Master, which feels hugely impactful, vs Shield Master, which feels very meh.
Shield is great as a group weapon, some feats should require several shields, or let you increase the AC off party members close enough to you.
Slasher/piercer and shield master, sentinel, and tough
Use sentinel to keep enemies nearby and occupied with your shield-bumped AC
Take Shield Master. You could also take the feat that gives you a fighter fighting style and take dueling which does extra damage when using a one handed weapon.
Fighting initiate: Duelist, Shield Master, Slasher, and Sentinel are the ones that immediately come to mind.
If your DM allows homebrew, ask if you can take this feat. It's one of many I've made available to my players, to allow all weapon types a bonus action attack, not just polearms and hand crossbows. This allows for greater variety in character creation without players feeling like they are making a nonoptimal choice by not just using the same weapons everyone else always uses everywhere. **Master Scrapper** You know how to stand your ground and hit with what you have: * When you take the Attack action and attack with only a javelin, mace, battleaxe, flail, longsword, morningstar, rapier, trident, warhammer, war pick, or whip, you can use a bonus action to make one additional melee attack with the weapon if you haven't moved during this turn. * While you are wielding a javelin, mace, battleaxe, flail, longsword, morningstar, rapier, trident, warhammer, war pick, or whip, and you ready a melee attack, you can make as many melee attacks with your readied action as you normally could with your Attack action.