How do you prefer your frontline fighters, Veeky Forums? With sword and board...

How do you prefer your frontline fighters, Veeky Forums? With sword and board, a big fuck off two handed weapon or dishing out pain by dual wielding? What do you think is most aesthetic and what contributes most to the party?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/kdx8kNo_ouA
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I prefer axe and board myself, since I'm used to playing dwarves. One big axe or hammer is fine too.

Heavy armor and bolt action rifle all the way.

Alternativeley Poleaxe

Wow, it's been a long ass time since I've seen someone who likes to play dwarves. For some reason, all my friends I've played with always want to play elves or half-elves. I'm the only one that has played dwarf at all.

That character didn't have a good end though.

Massive hammers with which to smite.

Gigantic blades with which to cleave are also acceptable.

I like sword-or-similar and board because I love the image of someone taking a bunch of arrows in their shield, throwing it down and then going two-handed

Sword and board for frontliners. Two handers for second liners and flankers.

Dual wielding is for losers

Two fist and a bad temper

>frontline
Obviously two handed, frontlines are shock troops, their purpose is to open the defences of the enemy.
behind them come the guys with shields.

if you want to play a dirty ugly motherfucker just play half-orc then.

For playing myself in a dark souls scenario?
Giant ass sword with an offhand shield.
For group combat?
Most everybody has small weapons while the big fucks have giant cleavers.
MMO style?
Normal sword and board, no giant anything.
Tabletop?
Shields always suck on tabletop, so whatever does the biggest damage.

Dwarves are the Samurai in my setting, so I get plenty of them

>Shields always suck on tabletop
In D&D 4e, if you can use a shield, and don't have a conflicting feature that overrides it, it's always better to have a shield than not. Two handed weapons just aren't that great for a lot most characters.

In 5e, fighter in fullplate+shield has 20 AC with nothing else. If you aren't using feats, two handed weapons have like, 4 average damage/hit on that. If you are using feats then yeah, two handed weapon is optimal (rogue still good for swashbuckling though).

In editions before WotC, you ALWAYS carry a shield because getting hit hurts and every little bit helps your character avoiding his untimely end. Besides, all the magical swords you find are going to be longswords, so it's not like you have any real benefit for two handing.

>all the magical swords you find are going to be longswords, so it's not like you have any real benefit for two handing.

A longsword is two-handed though?

>shields always suck on tabletop
If you play WFRP and your character doesn't have a shield you're basically asking to die

Not in D&D.

As far as I can remember, "long sword" and "Two handed sword" had always been different things in D&D. You can, at best, two hand it.

Leather and chainmail armor, add in furs of climate allows
Versatile weapon that can be wielded with either one-handed and two-handed grip
Light crossbow for first strike then drop and draw melee weapon

>Shields always suck on tabletop
>tower shields in 3.PF give directional full cover
Bruh

Depends on what works best on the system I'm currently playing. No sense limiting myself when I like all options aesthetically. I'll first adapt to the needs of my party/pick what others haven't yet. If somehow it's still not clear, I usually take sword and board.

Anything's a one handed weaponif you aren't a quitter

As I've gotten older, I've come to favor two-handed weapons more than my usual standby of sword-and-board. Dark Souls had some excellent and stylish movesets for two-handed weapons that inspired me for tabletop.

H A L B E R D
A
L
B
E
R
D

>halberd
>posts a poleaxe

youtu.be/kdx8kNo_ouA

Pikes!

>not throwing axes to shake up the enemy
France exists because of this tactic.