Sword & Shield Style

Remove all ads!

Is this a useless stat in the game for someone that can only carry bucklers?

 

I believe the benefits apply even with a buckler. However I can't recall if there is a buckler+1 in the game or if that's only in BG2, but there is only one of them and it's often not worth the aggravation of not being able to use the quickslots to swap between your bow and your melee weapon.

It's why I like to have fighters, rangers, or paladins use 2-handed weapons like halberds, spears, or 2-handed swords plus a [composite] longbow or crossbow with the 2-handed style. I have my clerics use the sword and board style with a mace, hammer, or flail and a sling. Druids are similar, giving them a 1-handed weapon and either a sling, darts, or throwing daggers (in BG1 you get a bunch of them for free from skeletons mid-game either near the High Hedge or the Ulster Ruins).
Thieves I tend to give single weapon style and a shortbow.
Mages I often don't bother with a style as I find getting both a melee and missile proficiency more important. In BG2 I might consider taking single weapon style after getting dagger.
Also I spread out the weapons selection so that I have at least one crossbowman, one (preferably two or more) bowmen, and a slinger (though usually more due to mages, druids, and clerics not having other options, although mages and druids can use darts or daggers) which allows me to be able to use all the special ammo out there in the game.
Yes, there are a few special darts too, and I often try to have a mage that can use them, but they are few in number and not that impressive.

 

I believe it's in BGEE. Certainly in SoD and BGII.

 

I'm with Slick, I always have everybody have some sort of missile weapon as a back-up. My very first play-thru I would have Imoen sneak around each map and snipe any monsters while the rest of the party waited with their missile weapons in ambush and then Imoen would race back to the party with monsters in tow to be sniped down by everyone else. Monsters would usually continue to chase at her even after they were pelted by everyone else so I could have just had her run circles around the party. And there are always a few fights that are just crazy op so I set up similar ambushes even now.

 

I'm playing a Bard and I don't want to waste a point on something that won't defend me agaist missle weapons.

 

Yeah that's a trade, though you more often run into melee-fighters since all beasty enemies are melee and most other enemies are melee fighters.

 

So no one really answered my question. If sword & shield is all missile attacks, than the spot is worthless.

 

Hm, my own experience with 2e is very limited, I never even bothered to buy the books as by that time I was playing and running (arguably) better games. I played a dwarven battlerager all of about 3 sessions of 2e and never played 2e again. So I had to try and dig around on google for 2e weapon specs and couldn't find a lot of useful info. I'm still of the opinion though that the bonus vs melee attacks would be worth something, especially if there is a magic buckler to be had. But my general inclination would be to go with specs that increase to-hit and damage instead = dead enemies can't hurt you.

 

What I'm worried about is wasting a proficiency slot. I decided to take single weapon istead which gives you an extra -1 in AC and critical hit on 19 as well as 20.

 

If bucklers are all you can carry and you'll have your character on the frontline, then single weapon style is usually more efficient. Sword and shield style is sadly rather underwhelming without any mods.

 

I generally follow the "Spock theory" that the best defense is a good offense. That's almost always worked better for me than trying to be unhittable. D&D seems like it always gets skewed one way or the other when you reach higher levels in any case. Either the to-hit bonus gets to be absurd vs the ACs you can encounter, or the ACs you encounter get ridiculous vs the to-hit bonuses you can have. Higher levels are fun but balance goes out the window.

 

I won't be on the front line, I just wanted something that would benefit me.

 

That holds true for most games that involve combat, especially RPGs. The rare exceptions are things like MMO raids that can't be brute-forced.

In order of effectiveness, it's always disabling enemies -> dealing damage -> mitigating damage -> healing damage, with tanking being one of the worst ways of damage mitigation.

If you have to heal during combat, you're probably doing something wrong since actions used to heal can usually be better utilized to get rid of enemies.

 

Well even if you have a real tanky tank they are certain to take some damage; the trick is to keep them alive so they can keep tanking instead of having squishy mages and rogues tanking. I've tanked with clerics before though, then it's a matter of keeping yourself alive so that the rest of your party can kick butt.

Hm, Sorvo, I know almost nothing (maybe less than nothing) about the 2E bard. Is that when they finally decided to make them their own class instead of a quadruple "dual-class" ? In 1e they started as fighter I believe, then dual-classed into thief between L4 and L7, then dual-classed into mage at L5-L8, then dual-classed again into bard at L6-L9 - with each new class having to exceed the level of the previous class before you could continue. The class was a mess because you basically didn't improve very much even as you gained levels in Bard.

 

Sort of.
Bards were more of a thief subtype/kit than their own class. They were related to thieves, but a separate class under the rogue archtype.
Rangers and Paladins were to Fighters as bards were to thieves.
Actually Rangers, Paladins, and Fighters were part of the "Warrior" archtype, while Bards and Thieves were part of the rogue archtype. Clerics and Druids were from the priest archtype.
Barbarians and Monks were from supplemental optional books, as were sorcerers.

 

Right, I remember the class-kits and all the splat books with the variations based on race and so on. I just couldn't remember how they'd done the 2e bard. I'd always liked the concept of the bards (Kieth Taylor wrote a series of books titled "Bard" back in the day which intrigued me), but they didn't really appeal as something I'd like to play until 3e.

 

I kinda liked playing a bard in P&P. I had a lot of fun with a character that acted like he was in a musical and would burst out into an appropriate song for various situations.The bard however is not going to be a MVP all-powerful character. He's the classic "Jack of all trades, master of none" and often functions more as a support or backup character. Where the Bard comes in handy is being able to pinch in to help out if the party's mage is incapacitated, or if the thief is OOC, and even hold his own in melee as he has better armor and weapons (not that the latter really makes that much difference, and thieves can use long swords which are good weapons and often a weapon of choice for fighters and paladins) than a thief, but the same THAC0.

We also created and tested a bit of "spell singing" house rule where bards could cast a spell in their spell book without using a slot by singing if you could find a song that fits the effect particularly well. The catch was that you had to sing the entire song, which took multiple rounds, so while theoretically singing Jerry Lee Lewis' "Great Balls of Fire" might be great for casting Fireball, it wasn't that useful in combat as it took 2 minutes to cast.
It didn't last (My group played from 1990-1997, so we experimented with house rules over the course of years), as it was deemed too overpowered even outside of combat, although we did modify it to make it so the Bard had to sing and dance for the amount of time it would normally take to memorize the spell (15 minutes per spell level). This allowed it to be expanded to clerics and mages performing "rituals" to do the same.
I

 

Yes, thieves could use the longsword which was THE BEST 1-hand weapon pre-3e , I usually say "mostly" if I'm talking about thieves poor weapon choices. It was so hard for them to get to use their backstab that they were better off with a shortbow well in the party back. But yes, I've enjoyed playing bards in 3.x, 4e, 5e and Pathfinder1e. They are quirky and can do quite a bit when played smartly. I played a bard/lyric thaumaturge in one game, though a couple idiots in that one didn't appreciate the character. Our two-weapon ranger didn't appreciate the +2 to-hit bonus or haste or a potential healer who knew what spells to have besides cures. Our cleric didn't understand the concept of being able to convert spells to gain cure spells so he gave up a LOT of his versatility by memorizing only cures. For instance I was the only person who had remove fear but often I was the first one to run away as wisdom isn't an important stat for a bard and thus couldn't use it on myself - and the cleric never imagined needing it. I've also used bards as an easy introduction into Arcane Archer. But I've also played bards straight. Just not pre-3.0 - as mentioned the 1e one was a major hassle, your character would likely die or the campaign end before you actually reached bard, and I played almost no 2e. Heh, once again I've hijacked the thread.