I was stuck at one part in the game on the guards near the black pits playing a knight ranger combo. I was two levels behind so the fight was quite difficult. I actually beat them once I gave my knight a shield and sword, which gave him a lot more armor and allowed him to use deflect. I actually beat them quite easily after switching to a sword and shield tbh, and after that I decided to run sword and shield for the rest of the game.
He definitely didn't do poor damage by any means, as I still put almost all his points into warfare and strength.
I don't think you understand what he's saying. He's not saying shields are bad, he's saying shields are bad for a melee warrior. You put shields on your spellcasters because then they will be targetted less by the AI and they will be able to prevent themselves from being CC'd. Since they are ranged combatants they will rarely have more than one enemy attacking them because of travel distance and because you'll spread out in combat to avoid AOE. IE - your 'healer archetype' should have a shield, your melee warrior should be 2h because the best defense is blowing away their physical armor and using battering ram or battle stomp to make them skip a turn entirely. Since 2h warrior is strength based he will naturally have high physical armor from gear, the shield is somewhat redundant. Additionally your 'healer' will be able to put magical and physical armor on your 2h warrior to prevent them from being chain CC'd and then they can save 'shields up' for their own defense.
