Can "anyone" use a mithral shield (non-tower)?


Rules Questions


prd wrote:
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
prd wrote:
Mithral: Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonuses are increased by 2, and armor check penalties are decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).

I never really considered wizards/sorcerers wielding shields, but there doesn't seem to be any reason not to do so. You don't need a proficiency to wear a mithral shield, as there is no armor check penalty, and a light or buckler shield doesn't even carry spell failure.

Am I missing something? Do a lot of people have their caster use a mithril shield?


Melkiador wrote:
prd wrote:
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
prd wrote:
Mithral: Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonuses are increased by 2, and armor check penalties are decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).

I never really considered wizards/sorcerers wielding shields, but there doesn't seem to be any reason not to do so. You don't need a proficiency to wear a mithral shield, as there is no armor check penalty, and a light or buckler shield doesn't even carry spell failure.

Am I missing something? Do a lot of people have their caster use a mithril shield?

The only reason not to use a mithral light shield is if you need your hands for something else.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lifat wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
prd wrote:
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
prd wrote:
Mithral: Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonuses are increased by 2, and armor check penalties are decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 0).

I never really considered wizards/sorcerers wielding shields, but there doesn't seem to be any reason not to do so. You don't need a proficiency to wear a mithral shield, as there is no armor check penalty, and a light or buckler shield doesn't even carry spell failure.

Am I missing something? Do a lot of people have their caster use a mithril shield?

The only reason not to use a mithral light shield is if you need your hands for something else.

You can also be a 5 Strength wonder who can't afford the weight.


LazarX wrote:
You can also be a 5 Strength wonder who can't afford the weight.

I suppose, but it sounds pretty light for even such characters. Most 5 strength characters would be size small, so the weight is halved and also halved by being mithril. So a small, mithral light shield would be 1.5 pounds.

I am assuming the halving is doubled that way. It's non magical and I can't think of another way that makes sense.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You can also be a 5 Strength wonder who can't afford the weight.

I suppose, but it sounds pretty light for even such characters. Most 5 strength characters would be size small, so the weight is halved and also halved by being mithril. So a small, mithral light shield would be 1.5 pounds.

I am assuming the halving is doubled that way. It's non magical and I can't think of another way that makes sense.

Keep in mind that when you're small, your carry capacity is reduced as well from the base amount. Most of the characters I know of that category are wandering around naked wearing endure elements and disguise self to get by.


True, but they still have it pretty good.
5 STR has 16 light load
If small, that would be 16*(3/4)=12
So, (12-1.5 for the mithril light shield) would be 10.5. That still seems like a lot of encumbrance, if you remember to half the weights of all of your gear. And that's just to stay at a light load. I'm not sure what else a character that would want to take a 5 strength would be expecting to carry.
A small outfit would be around .5 to 2 pounds.
A small light crossbow would be 2 pounds.
A small backpack is .5 pounds.

Wow, I just discovered that, for "gear", small equipment is actually 1/4 the weight. I had thought it was all 1/2, but that's just weapons and armor.

My fear of taking such a low strength would be how vulnerable that is to ability damage. I'm pretty sure strength damaging effects are the most common. As for carrying capacity, I think small characters may have it a little too good.


LazarX wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You can also be a 5 Strength wonder who can't afford the weight.

I suppose, but it sounds pretty light for even such characters. Most 5 strength characters would be size small, so the weight is halved and also halved by being mithril. So a small, mithral light shield would be 1.5 pounds.

I am assuming the halving is doubled that way. It's non magical and I can't think of another way that makes sense.

Keep in mind that when you're small, your carry capacity is reduced as well from the base amount. Most of the characters I know of that category are wandering around naked wearing endure elements and disguise self to get by.

Even at strength 5 and small penalty to carrying capacity your light load is still 12 lb. (remember that the weight for most items are halfed for small creatures while the capacity is only reduced with 25%, meaning that for a lot of items, you can actually care MORE than a medium creature with the same strength score.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lifat wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
LazarX wrote:
You can also be a 5 Strength wonder who can't afford the weight.

I suppose, but it sounds pretty light for even such characters. Most 5 strength characters would be size small, so the weight is halved and also halved by being mithril. So a small, mithral light shield would be 1.5 pounds.

I am assuming the halving is doubled that way. It's non magical and I can't think of another way that makes sense.

Keep in mind that when you're small, your carry capacity is reduced as well from the base amount. Most of the characters I know of that category are wandering around naked wearing endure elements and disguise self to get by.
Even at strength 5 and small penalty to carrying capacity your light load is still 12 lb. (remember that the weight for most items are halfed for small creatures while the capacity is only reduced with 25%, meaning that for a lot of items, you can actually care MORE than a medium creature with the same strength score.)

Remember that things such as spell books and COINAGE count for weight as well.


LazarX wrote:
Remember that things such as spell books and COINAGE count for weight as well.

A spell book is quite heavy at 3 pounds, but I never really consider coins much. A platinum is 10 gold, and it takes 50 platinum to equal 1 pound. Any more money than that and you should probably be finding a base of operations to store it.


You need a hand free for casting and the other hand for a rod. I think bucklers allow you to hold items but small shields do not. Also I would not allow you to dig though a pack with a buckler on you arm.

Scarab Sages

Melkiador wrote:

True, but they still have it pretty good.

5 STR has 16 light load
If small, that would be 16*(3/4)=12
So, (12-1.5 for the mithril light shield) would be 10.5. That still seems like a lot of encumbrance, if you remember to half the weights of all of your gear. And that's just to stay at a light load. I'm not sure what else a character that would want to take a 5 strength would be expecting to carry.
A small outfit would be around .5 to 2 pounds.
A small light crossbow would be 2 pounds.
A small backpack is .5 pounds.

Wow, I just discovered that, for "gear", small equipment is actually 1/4 the weight. I had thought it was all 1/2, but that's just weapons and armor.

My fear of taking such a low strength would be how vulnerable that is to ability damage. I'm pretty sure strength damaging effects are the most common. As for carrying capacity, I think small characters may have it a little too good.

Don't forget the spellbook and spell component pouch.


Melkiador wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Remember that things such as spell books and COINAGE count for weight as well.
A spell book is quite heavy at 3 pounds, but I never really consider coins much. A platinum is 10 gold, and it takes 50 platinum to equal 1 pound. Any more money than that and you should probably be finding a base of operations to store it.

Which is why I wrote "most" items. But yes. The items that aren't halved for small creatures is what makes the medium creatures carrying capacity worth something. (That and the strength penalty usually associated with smaller size)


Mathius wrote:
You need a hand free for casting and the other hand for a rod. I think bucklers allow you to hold items but small shields do not. Also I would not allow you to dig though a pack with a buckler on you arm.

According to many paladins and clerics, a small shield does not prevent somatic spell casting with that hand. They also argue you could swap your rod back and forth between your shield hand and main hand as a free action.

Grand Lodge

Shield spell covers it though.

Free hand as well.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Shield spell covers it though.

Free hand as well.

Shield spell has a short duration, doesn't scale. Can't be enchanted. Takes a round to cast. Uses up a spell slot.

It's not as if using a light mithril shield is something I plan or want to do, but there seems to be very little reason not to do it. Availability is the only issue I can see by the rules.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Monks lose their wisdom and level bonus to AC when they carry a shield, so for them a mithral shield is generally not worth it.


David knott 242 wrote:

Monks lose their wisdom and level bonus to AC when they carry a shield, so for them a mithral shield is generally not worth it.

True and Druids can't use a mithril shield without violating their code. That's why I had "anyone" in quotes in the title. But I guess I should have put that clarification in the original post.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Melkiador wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

Monks lose their wisdom and level bonus to AC when they carry a shield, so for them a mithral shield is generally not worth it.

True and Druids can't use a mithril shield without violating their code. That's why I had "anyone" in quotes in the title. But I guess I should have put that clarification in the original post.

Druids can just get darkwood instead of mithral for the same effect -- but they are already proficient with shields anyway.


Anyone non-proficient with a shield can use a mithral or darkwood shield and they will not suffer the attack penalties.

Wizards and Sorcerers can use mithral bucklers without the spell failure penalty. My wizards regularly use mithral bucklers.

Silver Crusade

Of course, with a sorcerer/wizard that extra shield AC (1 to 6 depending on enhancement) probably isn't saving your squishy hide, especially by the time you can afford a mithral shield. Not to say it isn't useful as a carrier for special effects though...


Riuken, I find that it helps against secondary enemies when your front line is fighting the BBEG. As for when you can afford it, you mean level 3?

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:
Riuken, I find that it helps against secondary enemies when your front line is fighting the BBEG. As for when you can afford it, you mean level 3?

Technically, yes, it could be afforded at level 3. What sorcerer/wizard do you know will drop the money on a shield instead of something else at level 3? I'd be going in for casting stat boosts, cloak of resistance upgrades, scrolls, wands, etc. My experience has been that a caster's AC will not be relevant, and not even close enough that a shield would help significantly. You're far better off removing yourself from the attacks to start with, or using percentage-based miss chances. Also more HP. Always more HP.

I guess what I'm saying is that although the truth that they could be used is apparent, I don't think you see them often simply because there is always something better to spend the gold on. As stated, at higher levels of wealth a shield may still be a good option to attach special effects to, but trying to play the AC game as an arcane caster is a losing game. Even martial types have difficulty with maintaining a relevant AC simply because attack bonuses scale so much faster than AC bonuses.


Riuken wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Riuken, I find that it helps against secondary enemies when your front line is fighting the BBEG. As for when you can afford it, you mean level 3?

Technically, yes, it could be afforded at level 3. What sorcerer/wizard do you know will drop the money on a shield instead of something else at level 3? I'd be going in for casting stat boosts, cloak of resistance upgrades, scrolls, wands, etc. My experience has been that a caster's AC will not be relevant, and not even close enough that a shield would help significantly. You're far better off removing yourself from the attacks to start with, or using percentage-based miss chances. Also more HP. Always more HP.

I guess what I'm saying is that although the truth that they could be used is apparent, I don't think you see them often simply because there is always something better to spend the gold on. As stated, at higher levels of wealth a shield may still be a good option to attach special effects to, but trying to play the AC game as an arcane caster is a losing game. Even martial types have difficulty with maintaining a relevant AC simply because attack bonuses scale so much faster than AC bonuses.

Those thoughts were true for 3.5, but in pathfinder, playing the AC game is actually quite effective. I've had several lvl 13-15 characters with an AC above 35. Granted a fighter (or the like) will have around +30 to hit at that point (as long as they don't power attack), but that still means they will miss a good deal of the time on the itteratives, and if you are playing an adventure path most of the encounters will be unable to hit you effectively.

EDIT: I don't disagree with your point about wizard's being way better served doing other things than boosting their AC, but a mithral light shield is so cheap that it would be a waste not to go for it... Especially now that mirror images are dependent on your own AC.

Sczarni

I just gave my Bipedal Eidolon a Mithral Heavy Shield. Puts his AC up to 19 at level 2 (or 23 if I can get Mage Armor off).

Since he's otherwise squishy, I felt the +2 AC was worth the 1k.

Silver Crusade

I think we have the same opinion from different angles. The point being, taking the mithral shield is a great idea, but that you shouldn't invest a significant portion of your WBL to it. Maybe when it's 5%-10%. At that point you're facing enemies that actually have itterative attacks, and the shield AC is being used in conjunction with other defenses. Level 3, bad idea; level 10, great idea. The point about rods remains, so I would suggest the buckler instead of the light shield.


Nefreet wrote:
I just gave my Bipedal Eidolon a Mithral Heavy Shield. Puts his AC up to 19 at level 2 (or 23 if I can get Mage Armor off).

Interesting. I hadn't considered that. Is there a limit to shield slots? Can both summoner and Eidolon wield shields at the same time?

The thing is that mithril doesn't even have to come into it. A Masterwork shield also has the check reduced by 1, so any non-mundane small shield will work without proficiency. I was just talking mithril, because of the arcane spell failure.


I'd get the mithral shield at around lvl 6-7, because that is when meleers start to get itterative attacks and at that point a mithral shield is 1/16 (6.25%) of your WBL.

Sczarni

"Shield" is not an item slot.

But the Summoner himself won't be wielding a shield anyways (just not his style).


Riuken, your statement was "by the time you can afford a mithral shield" and not, "by the time you can afford a mithral shield after you have made better purchases". I was responding to your statement as you wrote it.

To clarify, I stated a wizard can purchase a shield and it has helped me. You stated it wouldn't help by the time you can afford it. To which I responded that you can afford it at level 3 (and at that point it would help).

At no point in that exchange was there a discussion on whether or not it is wise to purchase one at level 3 in favor of other items.

Nefreet, "Shield" is most certainly an item slot. It is listed as such on CRB p459.

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:

Riuken, your statement was "by the time you can afford a mithral shield" and not, "by the time you can afford a mithral shield after you have made better purchases". I was responding to your statement as you wrote it.

To clarify, I stated a wizard can purchase a shield and it has helped me. You stated it wouldn't help by the time you can afford it. To which I responded that you can afford it at level 3 (and at that point it would help).

At no point in that exchange was there a discussion on whether or not it is wise to purchase one at level 3 in favor of other items.

Nefreet, "Shield" is most certainly an item slot. It is listed as such on CRB p459.

Fair point. My intent was clearly not conveyed well. All I'm really saying with regards to the shield is that the cost vs. effect for it is worse than many other items for several levels. Just like improving your armor to +1 is better cost-to-effect for AC than buying an amulet of natural armor. My experience (and speaking for mine alone) is that using wealth to improve casting potency/versatility is more important to a sorcerer/wizard than trying to increase defenses through AC, up until those defense increases come at a relatively minor cost.

Sczarni

I don't have my Core Book handy, and the PRD doesn't work on my phone, so I'll have to check when I get home, but I'm highly skeptical that there is a shield "slot". Is there a weapon "slot", too?

Wouldn't that mean you could never dual wield weapons? Or dual wield shields?

That's too videogamey for me.

Grand Lodge

Whoah. Check this:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook Page 459 wrote:

Magic Items on the Body

Many magic items need to be donned by a character who wants
to employ them or benefit from their abilities. It’s possible for
a creature with a humanoid-shaped body to wear as many as
15 magic items at the same time. However, each of those items
must be worn on (or over) a particular part of the body, known
as a “slot.”
A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear
consisting of one item from each of the following groups,
keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn.
Armor: suits of armor.
Belts: belts and girdles.
Body: robes and vestments.
Chest: mantles, shirts, and vests.
Eyes: eyes, glasses, and goggles.
Feet: boots, shoes, and slippers.
Hands: gauntlets and gloves.
Head: circlets, crowns, hats, helms, and masks.
Headband: headbands and phylacteries.
Neck: amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, and scarabs.
Ring (up to two): rings.
Shield: shields.
Shoulders: capes and cloaks.
Wrist: bracelets and bracers.
Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of
the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond
those in the slots listed above have no effect.
Some items can be worn or carried without taking up a slot
on a character’s body. The description of an item indicates
when an item has this property.


Hey, you're right. That's actually an important point.

All those dual shield builds take note! Only one magic shield allowed!


EvilMinion wrote:

Hey, you're right. That's actually an important point.

All those dual shield builds take note! Only one magic shield allowed!

Exactly! How has this never come up before?

I guess shield just doesn't feel like a slot.


EvilMinion wrote:

Hey, you're right. That's actually an important point.

All those dual shield builds take note! Only one magic shield allowed!

Only one magic shield but you could have multiple shield bashes as they are weapons. So 1 for AC, multiple for attacks.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Whoah. Check this:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook Page 459 wrote:

Magic Items on the Body

Many magic items need to be donned by a character who wants
to employ them or benefit from their abilities. It’s possible for
a creature with a humanoid-shaped body to wear as many as
15 magic items at the same time. However, each of those items
must be worn on (or over) a particular part of the body, known
as a “slot.”
A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear
consisting of one item from each of the following groups,
keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn.

*cut for space*

Not only did they add Shield as a slot, Pathfinder separated the head slot into 2 (Head and Headband), and the Chest slot into 2 (Chest and Body). So you can now wear magical armor and magical robes in Pathfinder, as well as a magical headband and magical helmet.

Silver Crusade

Melkiador wrote:
EvilMinion wrote:

Hey, you're right. That's actually an important point.

All those dual shield builds take note! Only one magic shield allowed!

Exactly! How has this never come up before?

I guess shield just doesn't feel like a slot.

Sometimes you feel like a slot. Sometimes you don't.


Melkiador wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Shield spell covers it though.

Free hand as well.

Shield spell has a short duration, doesn't scale. Can't be enchanted. Takes a round to cast. Uses up a spell slot.

It's not as if using a light mithril shield is something I plan or want to do, but there seems to be very little reason not to do it. Availability is the only issue I can see by the rules.

True, but it's a pretty big issue. Mithril shield is pretty freakin' expensive, and if you're already johnny-on-the-spot with your shield spells it's not cost effective.

Usually my wizards go with Mithral bucklers instead of full-on shields for various game and role-play reasons. In my head, the idea of a shiny metal arm-brace that protects on forearm and maybe extends to cover the smaller two fingers, Chinese Royalty-style is cool. It's also too small to be a full-sized shield. Other reasons include a buckler doesn't cause any problems if you suddenly need both hands for climbing, catching, grabbing, or whatever; and you can't use a bow with a light shield. When you're out of spells that...well it ALMOST matters.


Melkiador wrote:
Interesting. I hadn't considered that. Is there a limit to shield slots? Can both summoner and Eidolon wield shields at the same time?

Yes, but only one of them can have a magical shield, since the Summoner and Eidolon share Magic Item Slots.

Sczarni

Color me shocked.

At least "weapon" isn't a slot.

And I suppose this does put an end to the dual-shield-wielding builds I keep hearing about.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jeraa wrote:
Not only did they add Shield as a slot, Pathfinder separated the head slot into 2 (Head and Headband), and the Chest slot into 2 (Chest and Body). So you can now wear magical armor and magical robes in Pathfinder, as well as a magical headband and magical helmet.

Not only that, there are actually 3: armor, chest and body. So: vest & armor & robes???


Nefreet wrote:

Color me shocked.

At least "weapon" isn't a slot.

And I suppose this does put an end to the dual-shield-wielding builds I keep hearing about.

Are you disagreeing with the below post or was it overlooked? I'm fairly sure you can use a shield as a weapon instead.

graystone wrote:
"EvilMinion wrote:
Hey, you're right. That's actually an important point.

All those dual shield builds take note! Only one magic shield allowed!

Only one magic shield but you could have multiple shield bashes as they are weapons. So 1 for AC, multiple for attacks.

Sczarni

That depends on how you interpret this passage:

Earlier upthread wrote:

Of course, a character may carry or possess as many items of

the same type as he wishes. However, additional items beyond
those in the slots listed above have no effect.
Some items can be worn or carried without taking up a slot
on a character’s body. The description of an item indicates
when an item has this property.


The point of the mithral buckler isn't so much the +1 AC - though that's nice and cheap too - but as a platform for other enchantments. Such as spell storing.


Spell storing on a shield isn't particularly usefull. I usually aim for fortification/spell reflect (my favourite was 3.5 suolfire)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can "anyone" use a mithral shield (non-tower)? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.