What makes you think shielders are immune to ranged?
This idea that shields make people immune to ranged is ridiculous. Unless you have a shield out and a shield on your back, you're always vulnerable on the side your shield isn't on. I play 1h+shield with archery as secondary skill. Even with a shield up, if you don't have it at the right height you can get hit in the head, and irrespective of shield you can get hit in the legs. I've had my round cavalry shield broken by one throwing axe. That's 200 shield hp gone in one ranged attack. And I've been killed by arrows to the back plenty of times while my shield was out. I've also had the same shield destroyed by 2 swings of a 2handed axe. Far as I can tell from personal experience shields don't stop you from getting knocked down either. And there's breakthrough, which is only "situational" if the weapon (read barmace) isn't heirloomed.
Not to mention 2h fighters still have multiple weapon slots like everyone else. Don't want to get caught in your pet peeve situation? Carry something on the side to get you out of it.
Using a shield means you always have to worry about when it's going to break. Especially if you haven't plowed sp into the skill because as soon as it breaks you're stunned and fatally exposed. Plenty of 2hand fighters have big ass shields just for approaching under ranged fire. Also since shield is a skill and not a weapon proficiency, it's not really a proper description of any particular weapon-archetypal characters.
I think the constant analogizing of this game to rock paper scissors is not doing it any favors, because it simply isn't rock paper scissors. People are restricting themselves to these archetypes, the game isn't. No one said you had to put all your wpf eggs in one basket.