Shield Use vs Dealing Damage


Prerelease Discussion


I like how the use of shields are getting some life back into them. using a reaction to block damage depending on the type of shield your using. What I am concerned about is the Shield feat (possible) chain: Shield Warden.

This chain allows you to spend one of your 3 actions to block a attack vs making a attack.
This issue with this is that most players believe that dealing damage and dropping the creature is more effective then that theoretical attack that might not happen.

*Any time you have to spend a action that can be used for attacking to defend. That defensive action has to be something worthwhile and not vs something that can "possibly" happen.

*Offense (damage) is usually better then defense. As Offense scaled a lot faster in PF1e.

*I'm hoping that the changes to shields will offset some of the PF offense / defense issues. Just don't want to see those defenses based on actions that can be used for offense unless those actions apply a nice, consistent bonus for the player and/or allies.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Since every character gets 3 actions and a reaction, some active defense options won't necessarily bite into your attack options.

It would appear that the Raise Shield action isn't part of a chain, it's available to fighters right out of the gate, and available to other characters later on, as a feat. Also, if you're just trading your 3rd attack (at -10) the trade-off becomes much more appealing.

I'm expecting that "fresh" characters will be more willing to go all-out on their attack sequence, with little thought for defense, while gravely wounded ones will be far more willing to spend resources on defense.

Lastly, remember that Raise Shield doesn't only boost your AC. It also gives you a hefty swath of DR against an attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As Wheldrake mentioned, blocking doesn't cost a feat. The shield warden feat just lets you do it on behalf of someone else.

Hopefully the wording on that would be not just "you have to be adjacent to this ally" but instead "you must be adjacent to either this ally or the creature attacking this ally." The latter gives much more flexibility so it goes off more than never, making it less of a trap option. It's also totally reasonable, shield checking the enemy to interfere with the attack.


Fuzzypaws wrote:

As Wheldrake mentioned, blocking doesn't cost a feat. The shield warden feat just lets you do it on behalf of someone else.

Hopefully the wording on that would be not just "you have to be adjacent to this ally" but instead "you must be adjacent to either this ally or the creature attacking this ally." The latter gives much more flexibility so it goes off more than never, making it less of a trap option. It's also totally reasonable, shield checking the enemy to interfere with the attack.

I don't agree on this.

Positioning is important: if the fighter and her ally are side by side, it makes sense that she can block an attack directed on the adjacent ally; if they are flanking the enemy, how can she do that? In that case she is in a position suited to hit the enemy better, not to protect her friend.


I think facing should be important. If I have a shield in right hand and try defending someone on my left side would be more difficult then the right. I understand the need to move away from facing but for shield s I feel it is needed. To say that in a 6 second round I can actively defend every square around me and attack I feel is unrealistic.

Example
123
456
789

If I am a fighter with a shield in my right hand is square 5 facing 2. Trying to defend 4,7,8 would be difficult compared to 2,3,6


There's a reason facing is an optional rule since 3.x, it's a gigantic pain in the tail to keep track of for minimal gain.

Also remember that people aren't actually politely taking turns, moving one after the one with their own discrete time space. It's just an abstraction of what's actually happening "in context" which is everyone in the combat moving more or less simultaneously. This is part of why facing breaks down even from a flavor standpoint, because someone really would be adjusting facing on the fly to keep their guard or threat up.

Rounds should really probably be 12 seconds though, not 6 seconds.


I understand that all of that. But with my example and using a shield in 6 seconds doesn’t work realistically. I get everything happens simultaneously. That why I made my comment. I agree a hex system would be better than a square system.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:


Rounds should really probably be 12 seconds though, not 6 seconds.

I'm curious why you say that?

The six second round makes it easy to remember that 10 rounds = 1 minute. And if you're taking 20 on something that's a move or a standard action it means it takes 1 minute (3 seconds x 20 = 1 minute).

However I'm curious what would make the 12 second round superior?


12 seconds still results in a round number, 5 rounds per minute. It feels right as far as moving while being jostled and jockeying for position with the other people moving "in context," casting spells with verbal components longer than just a single "Abracadabra," actually applying simple binding to a wound rather than slapping a magical stickybandage to it, and so on. It gives the space for both the actions you take on your own turn, the other actions that people with slightly higher or lower initiative are taking somewhat before and after yours, and the reactions you are taking "out of turn" in between.


Megistone wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:

As Wheldrake mentioned, blocking doesn't cost a feat. The shield warden feat just lets you do it on behalf of someone else.

Hopefully the wording on that would be not just "you have to be adjacent to this ally" but instead "you must be adjacent to either this ally or the creature attacking this ally." The latter gives much more flexibility so it goes off more than never, making it less of a trap option. It's also totally reasonable, shield checking the enemy to interfere with the attack.

I don't agree on this.

Positioning is important: if the fighter and her ally are side by side, it makes sense that she can block an attack directed on the adjacent ally; if they are flanking the enemy, how can she do that? In that case she is in a position suited to hit the enemy better, not to protect her friend.

The issue with position is flanking. You open up a wide area on a tactical map and very rarely will we see players adjacent to each other. There's a couple very good reasons for this -

1) Flanking. The flanking bonus is just two good to pass up. Now with the 3 actions, you'll probably see more people attempting to get that flanking bonus.

2) Avoiding AoE. There's a fair amount of AoE effects in pathfinder. being adjacent to a ally is just begging for a AoE to be dropped on you.

About the only real time I see players adjacent to each other is (A) walking down a corridor/path or (B) in some place that limits movement. Such as a small room or deadly terrain.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Shield Use vs Dealing Damage All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion