Intercept Attack + Reaction Time + Shield Block?

[Ravingdork]

Reaction Time gives the guardian a bonus reaction for class specific abilities (including Shield Block). Intercept Attack says you take the damage in place of an ally.

If I had my shield raised, can I use both to take my ally's damage, have some of it absorbed by my damage resistance, then bounce the remainder off of my shield with Shield Block?

If so, like wow!

[Baarogue]

Ravingdork wrote:

Reaction Time gives the guardian a bonus reaction for class specific abilities (including Shield Block). Intercept Attack says you take the damage in place of an ally.

If I had my shield raised, can I use both to take my ally's damage, have some of it absorbed by my damage resistance, then bounce the remainder off of my shield with Shield Block?

If so, like wow!

Only if you're also good with getting double tapped by weaknesses by timing the shield block like that. I put the shield block before resistances and weaknesses because that's what makes the most sense

[Ravingdork]

Doesn't Shield Block always happen after the amount of incoming damage you'd otherwise take is known though? That's why you can never accidentally break your shield with the feat.

[Baarogue]

Ravingdork wrote:

Doesn't Shield Block always happen after the amount of incoming damage you'd otherwise take is known though? That's why you can never accidentally break your shield with the feat.

Yes, damage is not secret. Let's break it down for the newcomers to this argument

Damage Rolls, PC1 p.406-407
Step 1: Roll Damage Dice
this is not a secret roll. Do all the things in this step
Step 2: Damage Type
this is a necessary step because Shield Block has damage type requirements in its trigger. "Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you would take physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from an attack."

THIS is where I put Shield Block. After you know the types, but before you apply the resistances or weaknesses

Step 3: Apply Immunities, Weaknesses, and Resistances
If you put Shield Block AFTER this step, your shield benefits from your resistances, but it would also be susceptible to your weaknesses. It doesn't make sense to allow you to double-dip on resistances nor is it fair for you to be double-tapped by weaknesses. Just because you're anemic doesn't mean your shield should take extra slashing damage

There are some, including my past self iirc, who would argue that Shield Block is at Step 4: Reduce Hit Points because that is when "you would take damage". But I have come around to the argument that it should be before Step 3 for the reasons I stated above

[Castilliano]

Yeah, the silver blowgun dart that would bounce off anybody else's shield shouldn't break the werewolf's shield. It'd be a funny way to tell if your friend had caught lycanthropy though.
"Bob, I noticed your shield...kinda exploded there."
"Hah hah, funny, right?"
"Errr..."
"Grrr."

[Finoan]

Ravingdork wrote:

If I had my shield raised, can I use both to take my ally's damage, have some of it absorbed by my damage resistance, then bounce the remainder off of my shield with Shield Block?

That sounds an awful lot like using two reactions for the same triggering event.

You might technically be able to by Strict RAW, but expect a lot of GMs to push back on that.

[NorrKnekten]

Baarogue wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Doesn't Shield Block always happen after the amount of incoming damage you'd otherwise take is known though? That's why you can never accidentally break your shield with the feat.

Yes, damage is not secret. Let's break it down for the newcomers to this argument

Damage Rolls, PC1 p.406-407
Step 1: Roll Damage Dice
this is not a secret roll. Do all the things in this step
Step 2: Damage Type
this is a necessary step because Shield Block has damage type requirements in its trigger. "Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you would take physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from an attack."

THIS is where I put Shield Block. After you know the types, but before you apply the resistances or weaknesses

Step 3: Apply Immunities, Weaknesses, and Resistances
If you put Shield Block AFTER this step, your shield benefits from your resistances, but it would also be susceptible to your weaknesses. It doesn't make sense to allow you to double-dip on resistances nor is it fair for you to be double-tapped by weaknesses. Just because you're anemic doesn't mean your shield should take extra slashing damage

There are some, including my past self iirc, who would argue that Shield Block is at Step 4: Reduce Hit Points because that is when "you would take damage". But I have come around to the argument that it should be before Step 3 for the reasons I stated above

Because of relevancy, Seifter also explained shieldblock as working exactly like Baarogue explains here from the getgo. And Seifter, Bulhman and Bonner described this during their QA launch. Stating that the order of blocked damagetypes is up to the GM because otherwise you might be incentivised to selectively let through damage which of which you are resistant to.

Otherwise yeah, I believe "your ally would take damage" and "You would take damage (because of your previous reaction)" are sufficiently different but the RAW leaves this up to GM interpretation

Player Core pg. 414 2.0: Limitations on Triggers wrote:

The triggers listed in the stat blocks of reactions and some free actions limit when you can use those actions. You can use only one action in response to a given trigger. For example, if you had a reaction and a free action that both had a trigger of “your turn begins,” you could use either of them at the start of your turn—but not both. If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they're effectively the same thing. Usually, this decision will be based on what's happening in the narrative.

[rainzax]

I'd allow it.

Guardian sees his ally being attacked, and interposes himself shield first.

Where is the exploit?

[TheFinish]

Ravingdork wrote:

Reaction Time gives the guardian a bonus reaction for class specific abilities (including Shield Block). Intercept Attack says you take the damage in place of an ally.

If I had my shield raised, can I use both to take my ally's damage, have some of it absorbed by my damage resistance, then bounce the remainder off of my shield with Shield Block?

If so, like wow!

I do think it works, but the timing is a bit suspect in one regard.

This is mainly because the trigger for Intercept Strike is "An ally within 10 feet of you takes physical damage" while the trigger for Shield Block is "While you have your shield raised, you would take physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from an attack."

Does this mean the ally goes through the whole steps of damage, including their own weaknesses and resists (and even Shield block!) before you step in? Because for an ally to TAKE the damage, all of that needs to be done first, and then you step in, and use your own stuff.

That does seem to be RAW but I do think it's a bit too good, so I'd just change the wording of Intercept Strike to "would" take damage. Then you can step in with Intercept Strike, and since now YOU would take damage, you shield block.

Its also just what makes the most sense narratively: you see your friend about to get struck, and you step in and block with your shield, taking the hit for them.

[Castilliano]

That's interesting phrasing, as it leaves room for two shields blocking the same attack...a notion I dislike.

[NorrKnekten]

Two shields blocking the same attack is entirely possible when its two different people using their respective reactions, however the same person could not use two reactions that both has the trigger "you would take damage" against a singular attack.

I also feel like I need to state that RAI, triggers arent written to be that specific and the order and timing of multiple reactions with similar triggers is RAW up to the GM to decide where relevant. "Takes damage" and "would take damage" are essentially the same trigger, viable from the moment a damage roll occurs. Due to how reactions happens before the triggering event resolves with only a handful of exceptions (like reactive strike triggering off Stand).

If the text was that specific then "takes damage" happens already at the weakness step if one reads the Immunity,Weakness,resistance page with similar specificity. But at that point people would've been pushing more against Champion reactions that give resistances as they have "an enemy damages your ally" as the trigger since they were released.

[Ravingdork]

Thank you for digging into this everyone. Based on what I've read so far, I think I will go with Baarogue's interpretation about timing in my own games, as well as considering the triggers to be two separate events.

Though it looks like it's technically RAW legal, I probably would not allow two shield blocks or similar splitting of the damage at my tables short of the game developers saying that was intended.

Castilliano wrote:

Yeah, the silver blowgun dart that would bounce off anybody else's shield shouldn't break the werewolf's shield. It'd be a funny way to tell if your friend had caught lycanthropy though.

"Bob, I noticed your shield...kinda exploded there."
"Hah hah, funny, right?"
"Errr..."
"Grrr."

Lol

[Seerees]

my GM has ruled that because Intercept Attack only transfers damage and not the attack itself the damage doesn't count as being from an attack but from the reaction instead and therefore doesn't trigger Shield Block

[Seerees]

Baarogue wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Doesn't Shield Block always happen after the amount of incoming damage you'd otherwise take is known though? That's why you can never accidentally break your shield with the feat.

Yes, damage is not secret. Let's break it down for the newcomers to this argument

Damage Rolls, PC1 p.406-407
Step 1: Roll Damage Dice
this is not a secret roll. Do all the things in this step
Step 2: Damage Type
this is a necessary step because Shield Block has damage type requirements in its trigger. "Trigger: While you have your shield raised, you would take physical damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing) from an attack."

THIS is where I put Shield Block. After you know the types, but before you apply the resistances or weaknesses

Step 3: Apply Immunities, Weaknesses, and Resistances
If you put Shield Block AFTER this step, your shield benefits from your resistances, but it would also be susceptible to your weaknesses. It doesn't make sense to allow you to double-dip on resistances nor is it fair for you to be double-tapped by weaknesses. Just because you're anemic doesn't mean your shield should take extra slashing damage

There are some, including my past self iirc, who would argue that Shield Block is at Step 4: Reduce Hit Points because that is when "you would take damage". But I have come around to the argument that it should be before Step 3 for the reasons I stated above

I would never play a guardian if shield block isn't step 4, you'd be breaking a shield every block or 2

[NorrKnekten]

But it isn't step 4, Three difference paizo staff who were rather key to designing its core mechanics told us the hardness from Shieldblock is before resistances and your resistance does not affect the shield.

If you want to make it more durable there's options for that too, From the mending lattice on the high end and ablative plating or fortifying pebble on the low end.

Otherwise... you would still know if the shield is going to break if you decide to block with it.

[Tridus]

NorrKnekten wrote:

But it isn't step 4, Three difference paizo staff who were rather key to designing its core mechanics told us the hardness from Shieldblock is before resistances and your resistance does not affect the shield.

It is step 4 in Foundry. IWR happens first, then Shield Block.

I don't know if they picked that because that's how they think it should work, because they just prefer it, or because of technical reasons, but that's going to result in a LOT of games using that order as standard.

It's also wroth noting that PF2 designers have said in the past that some of this stuff isn't codified so GMs can decide it based on what makes sense narratively.

But ultimately it's not codified in the rulebook, so it's open to table variation. (I use the Foundry order because I'm running in Foundry and I don't have an issue with what it's doing that would make it worth the effort to do it manually. YMMV)

[NorrKnekten]

I've spoken to some of the Foundry people regarding this in the past and got several reasons as to why it is like this.

1) Shield Block was implemented before IWR and even before damage types were introduced to the system. Thats the main reason. Damage types just straight up didnt exist when the code for shieldblock was written and thus was placed right after the damage from various sources was added together to a single value.

2) The way a GM needs to order the damage types coming in means that its going to be a rather tough call to make any automation for it. Mainly events like two different physical damage coming in but the character is resistant to one, Which one do you let trough? Can they even make such a decision?

3) The clarifications they got from the rules team and similar has not helped them, One of the images given on their discord to support a Step 4 Reading was from Mark Seifter, Which as we have already stated has repeatedly explained it as not being step 4. Image to the post
The Paizo Rules team is typically very much about clear rules and clarifications but they to lose the intent behind some of these interactions and tend to run out of juice.

One thing I was told was that while there currently are no plans change shield block, but if they were to return to it they might change the order.

[YuriP]

I remember to read an interview (but don't ask me for the source, it was a long time ago) with Mark (if I'm not remembering wrong) saying that the main reason where Shield Blocks happens in Step 4 was to simplify the damage roll process.

If you apply the hardness between the Step 2 and 3 during Shield Block you have to calculate the damage in a very more complex way:

You will need to roll each damage type separated (to not apply non-physical damage to the shield).

Apply the shield hardness to this damage.

Reduce the shield HP.

Apply any IWR modifiers to the rest of damage.

Apply this damage to the character.

While if you run it before Step 4 (due to reaction interruption trigger) the thing is just to take the damage that that char will take, reduce de hardness and apply it to both shield and character.

The problem about IWR being applied to the shields is already well known by designers. But they choose to keep this in order to keep the damage calculation simplest. Foundry also kept this logic because they consider it RAW (even knowing that for the automations, the process to separate the damage types don't delay the game like it does in a non-automated session).

[Errenor]

YuriP wrote:

The problem about IWR being applied to the shields is already well known by designers. But they choose to keep this in order to keep the damage calculation simplest.

Well, the only problem with that is they don't choose anything. As has been said in this topic several times. The rules are ambiguous and the devs are silent.

Foundry is another issue.

[YuriP]

Keep silent is still a choice and as it is currently the RAW, the damage still applies as an interruption of Step 4 (“...you would take physical damage...”).

For each game the GM may change this in a way that it wants, but RAW, PFS e in Foundry this is how it's ruled.

[NorrKnekten]

I think I remember the one you are talking about Yuri, But if we are talking about the same one then he was actually saying that shieldblock uses the simplest operation that still applies damage to the character and the shield with an actual example that showed shield hardness before resistances.

You roll damage as usual,
the GM removes hardness from the aggregate, deciding what types to take from where relevant.
The PC and Shield takes the remaining damage separatly applying their own defences against the damage.

Important notes here are.
*As usual, Shields can still take and reduce non-physical damage according to Logan Bonner.
*Shields can have IWR of their own.

May I however ask what made you change your mind from a year ago? in response to This post?
-----------------------

Saying that it is RAW also just isn't true. RAW does not define "take damage" as an event but still uses the phrase "takes damage" all over the chapter for damage rolls to the point that one cannot place it at any definitive position. The only definitive thing about this timing is that steps 1-2 is entirely on the attackers side and 3-4 is entirely on the defenders side.

Equating the event of "Taking Damage" with Step 4 is an assumption of RAI, of which we already have direct designer input that this isnt the case, With Designers, developers and the rules team being the ultimate authorities on RAI its going to pretty much take direct input from one of those to actually prove that the behavior Mark, Logan and Jason explained isn't RAI. I've yet to see any such input or even that designers are aware and has decided to keep it like this, but i've seen plenty who uses foundry or incorrectly quoting the early 'How it's played' example as their sources of RAI. Which is part of the reason as to why I reached out to the foundry people in the first place and got the answer that they wrote it before damage types existed and thats where it remains with no definite answer as to if this is actually correct. Similarly, PFS has atleast in the past been very lenient when it comes to how individual GMs implement hardness and resistances as long as it is "somewhat" RAW.

A similar issue is seen in how Foundry treats hardness to, If a construct with hardness takes damage, reduce the amount by the hardness value, The construct then takes the leftover damage. at no point is there a definitive answer that hardness is applied after resistances, not in RAW or other authorative answer for RAI. I believe both Logan and Mark adressed that, but they both had different answers.

[TheFinish]

YuriP wrote:

If you apply the hardness between the Step 2 and 3 during Shield Block you have to calculate the damage in a very more complex way:

You will need to roll each damage type separated (to not apply non-physical damage to the shield).

Apply the shield hardness to this damage.

Reduce the shield HP.

Apply any IWR modifiers to the rest of damage.

Apply this damage to the character.

This...isn't more complex? At all?

You still need to roll each damage separately to account for IWR. If a guy is Immune to fire and I hit them with a Flaming Longsword, I don't add up everything and then say "welp, they're immune to Fire so it's all a wash". You either don't roll the fire damage, or you take the fire damage off of the calculation later.

The only thing you're doing is putting Bullet points 2 and 3 before 4, instead of doing 4,2,3. The amount of steps is exactly the same.

Whether you put Shield Block before or after IWR changes no math, at all, especially on the player side. But one makes shields stronger or weaker depending on the character, and the other does not.

[Castilliano]

But does the fire damage help the physical damage get through the shield? (vs. a target immune to fire)

Also should a target's Weakness help an attack that can't harm a shield on its own harm that shield? Ex. Does a torch's 1 h.p. fire damage actually singe a shield if a Frost Giant blocks with it?

I think there are two reasons the devs waffle on this: internal disagreement, plus the complex adjudication necessary for any method which did service to both verisimilitude & the blocker's knowledge of the damage pre-block.

[NorrKnekten]

As per Jason Bulhman, If this matters it is up to the GM to decide if the fire helps the physical damage through. I don't think any GM should or would prioritise non-physical damage unless it makes narrative sense but thats how Logan and Jason explained how to deal with the order or damage types hitting the shields hardness.

The shield absolutely takes fire-damage when held by a fire-immune creature, Just as another creature would take force-damage when blocking with an arcane-dragonhide shield thats immune to force-damage.

Same as with a Diabolic Dragonslayers shield when used against a fireball, where hardness is explicitly before the shield's own resistance. You might've reduced the 30 damage you would've taken to 22, but the shield reduced its damage to 12.
----------------------------------------
As a player you would know the damage and types pre-block or atleast the GM should've both rolled and told you the amount and types before you begin to consider step 3, And whoever is playing the character should know their own weaknesses and resistances more than the GM should.

I don't even think the cause is because of internal disagreement, I just don't think they have spent any amount of time on it between other errata and a remaster. What is probably more upsetting, seeing as there was a thread on the new Dragonhide shields and 3 of them are for damagetypes of which objects are already immune to, So apparently object immunities does not apply to shields for the purposes of shieldblock.

[TheFinish]

Castilliano wrote:

But does the fire damage help the physical damage get through the shield? (vs. a target immune to fire)

Also should a target's Weakness help an attack that can't harm a shield on its own harm that shield? Ex. Does a torch's 1 h.p. fire damage actually singe a shield if a Frost Giant blocks with it?

No...? Why would it? A shield can only block physical damage, elemental damage types should not interact with it at all.*

If a frost giant with a steel shield (Hardness 3) blocks a torch strike that deals 2 bludgeoning and 1 fire damage, the shield takes 0 bludgeoning damage and the frost giantt akes 0 bludgeoning damage and 11 fire damage (1 from torch, 10 from weakness).

In what world does it make sense for the steel shield to take 11 fire damage when it's not even a damage type it can block?

Castilliano wrote:

I think there are two reasons the devs waffle on this: internal disagreement, plus the complex adjudication necessary for any method which did service to both verisimilitude & the blocker's knowledge of the damage pre-block.

But Castilliano....the blocker already knows the damage before the block? Are people playing character that don't know they have Resistances, Immunities and Weaknesses?

The Frost Giant knows it's going to take 2 bludgeoning and 1 fire after step 2, and that Fire is going to turn into 11 at step 3. There is no gotcha here where the frost giant (or the player) doesn't know all the numbers after step 2 in order to make an informed decision.

*Barring I think...dragonhide shields?

[NorrKnekten]

Shields can block any damage regardless of type, Logan backs this up in the video posted earlier

The restriction is that you ordinarly can only use Shield Block in response to an attack that deals Physical Damage. So if you have a blowpipe with a flaming rune or using elemental ammunition the shield can both block that 1 physical damage, and however much fire that remains of its hardness.

But if it instead used Ooze ammo you couldn't use shieldblock against it because Ooze ammo replaces the weapons damagetype with Acid, so it no longer deals physical damage. The Trigger for Shieldblock never happens.

[TheFinish]

NorrKnekten wrote:

Shields can block any damage regardless, Logan backs this up in the video posted earlier

The restriction is that you can only use Shield Block in response to an attack that deals Physical damage. So if you have a blowpipe with a flaming rune or using elemental ammunition the shield can both block that 1 physical damage, and however much fire that remains of its hardness.

But if it instead used Ooze ammo you couldn't use shieldblock against it because Ooze ammo replaces the weapons damagetype with Acid, so it no longer deals physical damage.

That is interesting, though my point still stands regarding when a player knows damage is coming and how much (ie, at the end of step 2) before they block. Though I don't like leaving it up to GM fiat re:what the shield actually blocks.

I'll probably keep running it as I have, in any case.

[NorrKnekten]

Yeah, That point still stands. Amount of Damage and Damage Types are step 1 and 2 respectively and thats the total amount of damage dealt.

I personally always prioritise physical whenever possible, or whatever type is the triggering damage (or main damage in the case of Sparkling Targe). Very rarely will the main damage actually be lower than the shields hardness and outside of very low level play does this actually matter.

[Castilliano]

Shield Block triggers off "physical damage", but the effect covers "damage" w/o a qualifier (up to the shield's Hardness, so not each separately vs. the Hardness like when attacking an object).
And there are feats like Reflexive Shield which allow you to block non-physical damage (whose total damage also might be combined w/ physical w/ some spells/effects.)

So I think that Frost Giant cares whether its physical or fire damage getting through...unless the Weakness comes first. Plus the Frost Giant is an arbitrary choice. The example could address a physical Weakness too. Does a silver dart do more damage to a Werewolf's shield than it would to a human's?

As an aside, pretty sure Fire Giants aren't losing their equipment when wading through lava. Or maybe at some tables they are? (Thomas Covenant series had its fire-immune giants lose their hair even IIRC.)

[NorrKnekten]

That last link I posted where Logan explains that shields can block any type of damage is followed by Jason explaining that in the cases where resistance and weakness matters its decided by the GM as to not incentivise players into "letting the fire through". Pretty sure the same goes for NPCs in that when players attack them its the GM that decides wether or not the damage they are weak to actually goes through, A silver dagger's physical damage might overcome the hardness, but its not going to disintigrate the shield anymore than if it was held by a regular humanoid.

(You should rightly call out your GM if they play this way and only block damage the NPCs are weak to but never damage you are resistant to or vice versa)

Otherwise, any immunities, weaknesses or resistances on the wearer does not affect the carried items or the shield during shieldblock at all.
The system really does not have alot when it comes to equipment damage rules. Its just not something that its expected to handle very well and its also understandable why its a thing left behind in older systems.

Just imagine a PC falling into lava. taking 15 damage per turn. And then when they get up they are missing 20% of their hitpoints but their chainmail is molten goop and all their gear is unsalvagable ashes.

Equipment damage just isnt a big or common part of Second Edition for a reason and is better left to more gritty survivalist systems.

[Castilliano]

I don't have to imagine it, I lived it in 3.X (well...played it so I guess still imagined it). Though rather than lava it was more typically a Fireball or breath weapon hitting a dead PC's pile of gear. Typically only the armor survived, meaning PC tactics altered significantly to protect fallen bodies (even those of wealthy enemies).
Good riddance, whether a hand-wavy fix or not.

But yeah, I know how I'd rule, but it is so case-by-case that I think a rigorous flow chart (much less linear checklist) would be cumbersome (and likely lead to even more debate which is why Paizo doesn't even begin with some of this stuff). But with two principles it works, ones noted above by others: play fair & consistent; inform the blocker of damage beforehand.