Sturdy Tower Shield.

This is not in the CRB.

What is the reasoning for not creating it and adding it to the game?

Regular 'sturdy' shields are unique magic items per tier.

What stats would you use to create your own 'Minor Sturdy Tower Shield'?

The shield rules are a mess, and work much better if you just make Sturdy into a potency rune equivalent for shields.

I take it that Sturdy wasn't made a rune so it wouldn't make Adamantine Shield incredibly strong. But yeah, just write down that adamantine shield are already so resilient that strenghtening runes have no effect, or that Sturdy runes are made to emulate the sturdiness of adamantine on other metals, so obviously they'd be pointless on an actual Adamantine shield.

Except you know Sturdy shields are better than adamantine shields.

A common sturdy (moderate) shield cost 1/8 the price of an uncommon high grade adamantine shield. But it has twice as much HP and the same amount of hardness, and you find it 6 levels sooner.

As for sturdy tower shield. Just give it the same stats as an equivalent regular shield. That is what happens with all the other materials. So I don't see why sturdy would behave differently.

The materials are... basically useless. Sturdy tops them all. The reason to make Sturdy be a potency rune equivalent would be to allow actual heavy shield block users (for whom sturdy is basically mandatory) to play around with the other interesting shield enchants. On the other hand, that's a not entirely trivial buff to shield blockers, and by my understanding, builds like "champion tank" are plenty strong enough as it is right now.

Thanks for the input.

The posts about making them a potency rune would be fine but you cannot add runes to shields. At least this is what I am reading.

Its easier (for me) just to make the items from the ground up.

Thanks for the input.

The posts about making them a potency rune would be fine but you cannot add runes to shields. At least this is what I am reading.

Its easier (for me) just to make the items from the ground up.

Making Sturdy a Rune would be a house rule.

If you have lots of characters that are shield focused, you could look up some rules here on the Homebrew section because the standard rules pigeonhole all specialists into Sturdy Shield, which makes them an outlier, since it's the only build path that do not offer meaningful choices. In short, if your character plans on shieldblocking frequently (or as much as possible) Sturdy Shield is your main option because it's cheaper AND better.

The idea in the rules seems to be that a character would use different shields based on their priorities. They could use a tower shield if they want to use its ability to basically be a portable wall, giving an effective +4 to AC and possibly a bonus to other allies. Or they could choose to use a magically-reinforced sturdy shield that is incredibly hard and tough for consecutive shield blocks. An adamantine shield is also pretty hard, and gains the benefits of being an adamantine weapon when shield bashing.

All of those distinct possibilities allow for characters to have more choices (basically, there's no "best choice" for all characters). There are many specific shields that have different enchantments and abilities beyond being able to shield block, and this gives them some space to be special.

If you really want to allow a sturdy tower shield, you could just give them one that has the same stats as a normal sturdy shield but with a tower shield base. You could say that it costs more, but it'd probably be decently balanced with the same cost as well.

The idea in the rules seems to be that a character would use different shields based on their priorities. They could use a tower shield if they want to use its ability to basically be a portable wall, giving an effective +4 to AC and possibly a bonus to other allies. Or they could choose to use a magically-reinforced sturdy shield that is incredibly hard and tough for consecutive shield blocks. An adamantine shield is also pretty hard, and gains the benefits of being an adamantine weapon when shield bashing.

All of those distinct possibilities allow for characters to have more choices (basically, there's no "best choice" for all characters). There are many specific shields that have different enchantments and abilities beyond being able to shield block, and this gives them some space to be special.

If you really want to allow a sturdy tower shield, you could just give them one that has the same stats as a normal sturdy shield but with a tower shield base. You could say that it costs more, but it'd probably be decently balanced with the same cost as well.

None of this remains true at higher levels (10~12+). Nobody in their right mind would buy a shield that costs several times more and does less than a sturdy shield of lower levels. Just check out the disparity between an Adamantine Shield and a Sturdy Shield of roughly similar stats. You'll find a staggering different in price and level that heavily favor the Sturdy Shield item line and Adamantine is the best material when it comes to hardness/HP.

The system, as it is right now, does not support the idea that there are meaningful choices. Only characters that do not focus on their shields have actual choices, since they're not built to rely more than occasionally on the shield block reaction (clearly the main draw of focusing on a shield build in the first place) or that only care about raising their shield, which means that they don't even need to bother buying shields of higher levels, since level 0 shields already grant their AC bonus.

There are but a handful of shields that offer meaningful competition to the Sturdy Shields, Jawbreaker and Indestructible being good examples.

Putting it clearly and simply, if your character's main focus is shields, you only have one true option: Sturdy Shields.

Compared to the majority of shields, this item line is clearly superior and against the other possible choices, they have some benefits that others don't, specially rarity and prices, which may be a significant hurdle if the GM isn't willing to even make them available to your character at all.

I strongly disagree that sturdy shield is the only good shield. There is also the spellguard shield.

The system, as it is right now, does not support the idea that there are meaningful choices. Only characters that do not focus on their shields have actual choices, since they're not built to rely more than occasionally on the shield block reaction (clearly the main draw of focusing on a shield build in the first place) or that only care about raising their shield, which means that they don't even need to bother buying shields of higher levels, since level 0 shields already grant their AC bonus.

I think it's been well-established that the Sturdy shield is the one you use if you're focused on shield blocking, yes. That said, blocking-based shields had their stats updated in the second round of errata (e.g. the Forge Warden which now has Hardness 10 and 40 HP, which is still significantly less than an equal-level Sturdy shield but not in "look at it sideways and it breaks" territory). That doesn't make the other shields [b]bad[b]—they are still valid for their abilities. Dragonslayer's Shield still gives elemental resistances, a Spined Shield lets you combine the AC bonus of a shield with a limited-use ranged attack, and so on.

Okay, here's a thought: what about fixes? In particular, one of the issues with shields other than Sturdy is that they don't scale. There's no low-level indestructible shield. What about... well, have "sturdy" be the baseline, like we have for baseline weapon and armor runes. Then you can add other stuff onto it, and it scales up, but there's an explicit cost built in. So, for example, Forge Warden would be marked as something like Hardness -3, HP 40%. (...and if it really has been raised to 40, then the archives of nethys needs to update.)

That way, we can have the option space open up at least a bit, and you won't automatically scale past your shield as you level, but we still aren't just handing shield blockers a buff.

Forge Warden has been errated (it's in the errata file), but that did not make it into core 2nd printing.

I believe Nethys mirrors the rulebook not the errata document, so we'll probably have to wait until 3rd printing of core for Nethys to get the errata. I must state that this staement about Nethys is speculation.

I'm very dubious about adding sturdy to other shields, it would make them well broken. Not all shields are intended for the block reaction, and for some of them, they would be used just for the AC and their special power (such as adding their bonus to your saves v spells, for the spellguard shield)

I still think spellguard is the best shield beyond low levels. At mid to high level, hit points become less important than resisting all the nasty spells, so spellguard is just straight out the best shield.

One solution specifically to shield. Is maybe to treat the whole thing like PF1 enchantments. Sturdy itself is a 1 slot enchantment, while other shield runes might be 1 or 2.

Alternatively, you could limit the level of sturdy that can be added. This makes it so the highest level sturdy shield can only be used on material shields.

Forge Warden has been errated (it's in the errata file), but that did not make it into core 2nd printing.

I believe Nethys mirrors the rulebook not the errata document, so we'll probably have to wait until 3rd printing of core for Nethys to get the errata. I must state that this staement about Nethys is speculation.

I'm very dubious about adding sturdy to other shields, it would make them well broken. Not all shields are intended for the block reaction, and for some of them, they would be used just for the AC and their special power (such as adding their bonus to your saves v spells, for the spellguard shield)

I still think spellguard is the best shield beyond low levels. At mid to high level, hit points become less important than resisting all the nasty spells, so spellguard is just straight out the best shield.

If you're not using the block reaction, and no one's attacking your shield directly, then sturdy is meaningless. If you just use them for their AC and special power, then Sturdy isn't really a thing.

If you are using the block reaction, then spellguard (and shields like it) are non-viable at higher levels. HP never go out of style. At lvl 20, a champion (the class most tuned to shield block) might reasonably expect to have a bit over 300 HP. A level 19 sturdy shield strips 20 HP damage off of each hit it blocks. Lay on Hands is healing for 60 at that point (hero's defiance is 45), so every three shield blocks is effectively a free lay on hands. I can't speak to how well that compares to +2 to saves at that level, having never adventured at that level, but I find your assertion that "spellguard is just straight out the best shield" to be pretty dubious... and that's before we get into the effects of some of the shield block support feats.

The thing that I'm suggesting is, in effect, that magic shields other than sturdy ought to have appropriately scaling HP/Hardness, so that shield blockers could continue to use them at higher levels. They'd still have less hp/hardness than the sturdy shields of their own level. If that's the thing that you're arguing against, then it seems like what you're saying is "No. Spellguard shields are really good, and shield blocking characters shouldn't be allowed to have them at higher levels." Is that what you're saying? Because if so, it sounds a bit mean-spirited.

If you're not using the block reaction, and no one's attacking your shield directly, then sturdy is meaningless. If you just use them for their AC and special power, then Sturdy isn't really a thing.

A level 19 sturdy shield strips 20 HP damage off of each hit it blocks. Lay on Hands is healing for 60 at that point (hero's defiance is 45), so every three shield blocks is effectively a free lay on hands. I can't speak to how well that compares to +2 to saves at that level, having never adventured at that level, but I find your assertion that "spellguard is just straight out the best shield" to be pretty dubious

Once you have both sturdy and spellguard on the same shield there's little in choice in which one you take anymore.

Would you rather get hit and maybe your backline can heal that - or fail a save vs paralyse, or even worse crit fail vs baleful polymorph, and then have them beating on your backline?

Seriously how bad it is to be a harmless animal (mind and body) for the rest of your life because you botched 1 spell save? Basically a single monster melee at high level probably won't 1 shot you, but single spell can.

I’d ask for some middle ground between those that feel like shields are useless without Sturdy and the trade-offs Paizo designed into shields with their current stats and abilities.

My only contribution to the discussion is that the next time I get to make a shield block using character, I’ll probably attempt to buy non-sturdy shields at a tier behind my character’s level in order to make replacing them less of a sting.

Once you have both sturdy and spellguard on the same shield there's little in choice in which one you take anymore.

I don't think Sanityfaerie is arguing that there should be a 20th(ish) level Spellguard Shield with hardness 20 and 160 HP. Rather, that there should be one that's maybe hardness 15 and 100 HP—significantly weaker than the appropriate-level Sturdy shield, but still a lot better than the 6th level Spellguard shield with hardness 6 and 24 HP.

I’d ask for some middle ground between those that feel like shields are useless without Sturdy and the trade-offs Paizo designed into shields with their current stats and abilities.

My only contribution to the discussion is that the next time I get to make a shield block using character, I’ll probably attempt to buy non-sturdy shields at a tier behind my character’s level in order to make replacing them less of a sting.

...but if you do that, you're replacing them a lot more frequently.

I think that the thing you pretty much have to do is pick what you block. You shield block on the little hits, and let the big hits through.

...or were you trying to do that and it just wasn't working for you?

Once you have both sturdy and spellguard on the same shield there's little in choice in which one you take anymore.

Would you rather get hit and maybe your backline can heal that - or fail a save vs paralyse, or even worse crit fail vs baleful polymorph, and then have them beating on your backline?

Seriously how bad it is to be a harmless animal (mind and body) for the rest of your life because you botched 1 spell save? Basically a single monster melee at high level probably won't 1 shot you, but single spell can.

So what you're talking about there is a crit fail on a fort save. Basically anyone who has a shield is going to have decent fort saves. Taking a crit fail on that for anything other than a 1 is going to require missing it by 10 or more. By my read, shield blockers are going to tend to be fighters or champions, with champions being significantly more likely (as fighters with shields are more inclined to be of the "raise but not block" school already)

So, champion fort DC by level, assuming standard bumps. I'm going to assume an initial con of 14. We will assume that you have *not* invested in Divine Grace, or in anything else that might help buff up your fort save other than the bog-standard basic saving throw runes.

A single caster of the party's level +3 is about as bad as it should ever get, and that's for standalone bosses. If your DM is throwing lvl+4 casters against you, they're pretty much *trying* to kill you, and you have bigger problems.

We will assume no temporary conditions in either direction.

lvl 1: +6
...
lvl 10: +21 (enemy caster DC at lvl 10: NA. lvl 13: 34)
lvl 15: +28 (enemy caster DC at lvl 15: 37. lvl 18: 43)
lvl 20: +34 (enemy caster DC at lvl 20: 46. lvl 23: 50)

So... the casters you might reasonably have to face more than one of in a fight can't draw a critfail on anything other than a 1 until very late in the process, and even then just barely. Also, this is a spell that isnt' even available until level 11. The ones where that +2 might be the thing that can save you from critfail are, admittedly, able to start making their displeasure known in this way by (your) level 10, but they'll be blowing one of their highest-level slots and the heart of their actions for a round on a save-or-suck targeting one character, that is highly likely to either do nothing or just take you out of the fight for a round or two.

At the higher levels you do start seeing appreciable levels of risk from solo casters, it's true, but you're still talking about a case where you're fighting a higher-level caster, they happen to have this spell or some close equivalent on their list, they decide it's worth spending the round to try to use it in this way, and then the player they decide to target with their fort save spell is the beefy dude in the full plate male, rather than... just about anyone else. I gotta wonder how many times this particular situation comes up over the course of a campaign. I mean, it's true. I *haven't* played in any particularly high-level PF2 campaigns as yet. Have you? Are you going off of theory or personal experience?

Even past all that, though, it's still not as bad as you're tryign to suggest. Baleful polymorph with a critfail doesn't go away on its own, but dispel magic still takes care of it well enough, if you can get someone to throw enough tries at it to make the thing stick.

Failing a save vs paralyze... it's costing their caster a round and a slot to cast, and it's costing you a round to recover. improving your chances of hitting the "lose one action" rather than "lose one round" effect by 10% is nice and all, but I don't think it's the overwhelming advantage that you seem to be making it out to be.

At the higher levels you do start seeing appreciable levels of risk from solo casters, it's true, but you're still talking about a case where you're fighting a higher-level caster, they happen to have this spell or some close equivalent on their list, they decide it's worth spending the round to try to use it in this way, and then the player they decide to target with their fort save spell is the beefy dude in the full plate male, rather than... just about anyone else. I gotta wonder how many times this particular situation comes up over the course of a campaign. I mean, it's true. I *haven't* played in any particularly high-level PF2 campaigns as yet. Have you? Are you going off of theory or personal experience?

Three things that may been forgotten:

(a) Will saves vs Control spells such as Dominate, and the fighter's Will Save is a meme.

(b) Spells such as paralyse are AOE at high level and very much more efficient to cast.

(c) You probably don't "just undo polymorph" because "cat in body and mind" means it ran away and got eaten by the troll next door, or got fireballed to death on accident because it has 6 hit points.

High level spells are not "automatic death" but they're practically about the only way you can instantly lose unless your GM is exceptionally mean.

I don't htink most AP have solo bosses but I admit I haven't counted the numbers for all of them.

Actually, I can see some GMs saying you keep the hit points which solves collateral damage issues. It won't solve the troll dinner problem.

Straight-up, is this based on personal experience? Understand that by asserting that spellguard is hands-down the best, you are asserting that shield block is functionally useless in the long-term, and thus that all feats that support shield block are likewise long-term useless. That's a pretty bold claim to make, given how well-tuned the game is in general, especially since that doesn't appear to be the general consensus on the matter from the people who *have* played at those levels.

Straight-up, is this based on personal experience? Understand that by asserting that spellguard is hands-down the best, you are asserting that shield block is functionally useless in the long-term, and thus that all feats that support shield block are likewise long-term useless. That's a pretty bold claim to make, given how well-tuned the game is in general, especially since that doesn't appear to be the general consensus on the matter from the people who *have* played at those levels.

From the arguments, I've seen made shields aren't a particularly well-balanced area of the game. Even in this debate people basically only seem to be debating the relative merits of exactly two types of shields ignoring the other types beyond a token mention.

Going even further it seems like there are a fair few people that didn't like how current rules seem to incentivize only blocking blows below a certain damage threshold as HP is more easily replaced than a destroyed shield, which further leads back to sturdy being the only viable option for anybody that wants to use shield block beyond the game's mid-levels. I myself would consider making a type of magic shield that almost as tough as a current sturdy shield but which can be endlessly resummoned with two actions for the earliest available version and a single action at some higher level. This lets people fully utilize shields as a resource without the same level of anxiety that causes people to save elixirs in a JRPG.

Understand that by asserting that spellguard is hands-down the best, you are asserting that shield block is functionally useless in the long-term, and thus that all feats that support shield block are likewise long-term useless. That's a pretty bold claim to make, given how well-tuned the game is in general, especially since that doesn't appear to be the general consensus on the matter from the people who *have* played at those levels.

I'm not saying that at all. I don't know where your statement comes from.

Spellguard is the best shield at high level (because it saves you from save-or-die), but the others are absolutely not useless.

What items you use probably has more to do with your party composition and what adventure you're running than its mechanical stats.

Are sturdy shield one of the best shield if you use shield block? Absolutely. But what if you don't? Having a shield is perfectly viable for any character that doesn't have a two handed weapon. Wizards (or any other "cloth" spellcaster) benefit from having the +2 to AC, as do Monks and Rogues. Do you have to use your third action every turn to raise that shield? No. Can it be a major lifesaver? That +2 might not negate a hit (particularly at high levels), but it might just be the difference between a hit and a crit, which is a huge deal.

This is not in the CRB.

What is the reasoning for not creating it and adding it to the game?

Regular 'sturdy' shields are unique magic items per tier.

What stats would you use to create your own 'Minor Sturdy Tower Shield'?

Some will claim 'The Sturdy Shield' is THE shield for blocking 'feature' and you shouldn't (game sense) be blocking with anything else at higher levels. Those might feel the advantage of being able to take cover behind a Tower shield is an ability a sturdy shield shouldn't have.

I'm inclined to say as long as it remains much bulkier, having a sturdy Tower Shield would be believable. Normal Tower shields have the same HP as Steel Shields, and generally speaking guidance is that the sturdy shield should be the 'top' of the HP spectrum for blocking, so you would need to keep the HP and hardness limited to at most the same or slightly under the sturdy steel shield's values. You should keep the bulk higher, and insure there isn't a way to get the bulk down to comparable with the magic sturdy shield (via special materials, etc.) as you shouldn't be able to build a better Sturdy Shield out of opening it up. To insure that doesn't happen, you might consider watering down the HP/hardness of the tower variant a smidge, and that might satisfy that group without making the shield unusable for blocking.

Otherwise, if you are insuring there is some sort of tradeoff, and that the regular Sturdy shield are the best for simple blocking with least investment of other resources, you are within what they have suggested should be done.

We just need a feat to raise two shields as an action, one in each hand.

Or you glue a sturdy shield to a spellguard shield. Outer shield takes the hit first. :D

I allowed a Sturdy tower shield on the roman legionnaire themed fighter in my AOA game using the sturdy shield stats and the tower shield action. The tower shield action is cool, but it isn't a strong enough option to worry about too much as far as pushing the power available to characters. I might shave off 1 hardness and a few HP from Sturdy to account for this option if I had to do it again.

For other shields, I do let my players mix and match rules a little. I'll allow a half spellguard half sturdy shield, for example, by giving +1 to saves and half of the hardness/hp increases of the sturdy shield of that level over the regular shield.

I also allow the inventor feat to be used to split the difference between tiers of sturdy shields for in between level shields if they craft that schematic. In general, I'll let players with inventor interpolate between tiers of items like shields and alchemical items as long as they create the schematic and there's a clean way to figure out what the between levels would do.

I allowed a Sturdy tower shield on the roman legionnaire themed fighter in my AOA game using the sturdy shield stats and the tower shield action. The tower shield action is cool, but it isn't a strong enough option to worry about too much as far as pushing the power available to characters. I might shave off 1 hardness and a few HP from Sturdy to account for this option if I had to do it again.

For other shields, I do let my players mix and match rules a little. I'll allow a half spellguard half sturdy shield, for example, by giving +1 to saves and half of the hardness/hp increases of the sturdy shield of that level over the regular shield.

I also allow the inventor feat to be used to split the difference between tiers of sturdy shields for in between level shields if they craft that schematic. In general, I'll let players with inventor interpolate between tiers of items like shields and alchemical items as long as they create the schematic and there's a clean way to figure out what the between levels would do.

I like this answer a lot. I think using the standard sturdy shield and just allowing a tower variant would suffice. The Tower is already penalized by its bulk value.

Thank you again.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Understand that by asserting that spellguard is hands-down the best, you are asserting that shield block is functionally useless in the long-term, and thus that all feats that support shield block are likewise long-term useless. That's a pretty bold claim to make, given how well-tuned the game is in general, especially since that doesn't appear to be the general consensus on the matter from the people who *have* played at those levels.

I'm not saying that at all. I don't know where your statement comes from.

Spellguard is the best shield at high level (because it saves you from save-or-die), but the others are absolutely not useless.

What items you use probably has more to do with your party composition and what adventure you're running than its mechanical stats.

When you say that "straight out the best shield", you kind of are saying that.

Let me walk through the logic for you.
- At higher levels, the spellguard shield is basically useless for blocking. Blocking becomes an action that reduces damage slightly, and shatters your shield.
- If a shield is "the best" without qualification that means that it is, at minimum, the best shield for every reasonably character build that uses a shield - that any character that has any other shield would be better served to "upgrade" to a spellguard shield. That's what "the best" *means* when you state it boldly and without caveat.
- at higher levels, spellguard shields are cheap, and have been for a while. At that point, there's no real practical barriers to entry preventing someone from acquiring one of their own.
- By extension, at high levels, even a build designed for shield blocking would be best served by acquiring and using a spellguard shield (and would find it relatively easy to do so). Having done that, their shield block action becomes functionally useless - it just serves to shatter the shield, at minimal benefit. By extension, any feats, class features, or whatever else that they might have that would support shield blocking are also effectively useless.

Essentially, then, by calling it "straight out the best shield" without caveat, you're saying that any high-level build that invests in shield block in any way is fundamentally suboptimal - that trying to build for it is basically useless when you could be just using a spellguard shield instead, and putting those feats elsewhere.

At high levels 250gp is a relatively small price to pay for a +2 to saves. So, my Shield-Ally Paladin with Everstand Stance and a sturdy shield will just buy one and keep it on his back for the rare occurrences when he is fighting a boss-level caster. It is unlikely he'll need the power of the sturdy shield blocking against the mooks guarding the caster. Best of both worlds. I am certainly not giving up the sturdy shield for most circumstances. Champions already have some of the best saves (assuming full plate armor for bulwark).