Can shields only take 3 hits


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Yeah, the realism hole can get annoying, people will argue since there are giant flying lizards that breathe fire, what does it matter, but that is a slippery slope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

100%? ok so no realism at all? so no fall damage, my character keeps fighting while decapitated, Swimming in full plate, Wrestling a 50 foot tall 600 ton monster to the ground, Jumping to the moon, cutting a mountain in half with a dagger, making it rain ice cream, With no spells spontaneously sprouting tentacles, Grabbing a near by rainbow and contorting it into a sword with my bare hands, etc. etc. your down for all that I can think of more absurd examples if you want?

Some of those seem sillier then carrying extra shields which was a thing that actually happened.

that sounds an awful lot like something you'd find in irish mythology, which is one of the big hero mythos to pull from for martial ideas. in levels of progressive zaniness-slash-badassery, i find you go english->irish/japanese->norse/greek->hindu.

and most of those you list are something that almost any wizard can do with little more than a wave of the hand and an errant thought (while indefinitely flying, undetectable, with a day planner courtesy of throttling god until he answers your questions about the future)--you DESERVE to be able to split a mountain with your weapon by comparison, so that at least the scope and scale of your impact on the world as a character is in something vaguely resembling the same ballpark.

Do I really need to make up inane stories of dragons made of chocolate pudding and you defeating them by eat them and throwing generating black holes to throw at planets or I can even go into complete nonsense if you'd really like Where I draw my +3 halibut (thats a fish) to and use it to fly me to narnija so I can drop a armoire on my enemies head... Their is going to be a point where you want some level of realism. Saying I 100% don't want any realism is as silly as the examples.

YES. while you're conflating a lack of realism with complete absurdity, those events sound like a fun and unique adventure (of literally any mid-to-high level wizard).

things can be unrealistic and still reasonable (and decently even across different roles!).

edit: and seriously, i dont understand why people think only the magic beardman gets to fart lightning and fly and level cities for funsies, when by all rights the LEGENDARY SLAYER OF ALL LIVING AND NON-LIVING ENTITIES, with near as many accolades as the wizard of the same adventuring party, who is nearing or an outright demigod at this point (with class listed as fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger/etc), cannot do something even NEARING an equivalent.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yeah, the realism hole can get annoying, people will argue since there are giant flying lizards that breathe fire, what does it matter, but that is a slippery slope.

You have to have a ground floor to work from and I just don't believe that a game with 0 realism is desired. Like I doubt its even possible to imagine a game with 0 realism cause frankly my examples are still somewhat feasible with magic etc. 0 realism would be like looking at an abstract painting and trying to stat it out.


Your trying to make some sort of point that its ok not to have a realistic game. That's fine. my point was that no matter how hard you try your going to have some. its not a negative thing.

Also no the +3 halibut is just ridiculous their is nothing charming or funny about that unless your 5.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

Your trying to make some sort of point that its ok not to have a realistic game. That's fine. my point was that no matter how hard you try your going to have some. its not a negative thing.

Also no the +3 halibut is just ridiculous their is nothing charming or funny about that unless your 5.

i take it you've never played monster hunter, where swinging giant swordfish, frozen tuna, and stuffed sharks are some rather fun (and surprisingly viable) options for combat.

edit: and then there's the monty python herring reference angle you could take as well, c'mon man.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Your trying to make some sort of point that its ok not to have a realistic game. That's fine. my point was that no matter how hard you try your going to have some. its not a negative thing.

Also no the +3 halibut is just ridiculous their is nothing charming or funny about that unless your 5.

i take it you've never played monster hunter, where swinging giant swordfish, frozen tuna, and stuffed sharks are some rather fun (and surprisingly viable) options for combat.

Nope and sounds like I never will.

Sometimes to have a logical discussion you have to have common ground. To get to common ground it helps to get to the ground floor of an issue. he said (paraphrase) I don't want any realism at all in my games. A statement put most likely to extremely establish his point and make hims seem more unassailable in his stance. I am trying to say that their is probably some level of realism he would want as a way to establish that his stance is to extreme.

All your little hey I don't mind if a game doesn't have physics or logic or structure is just muddying the water.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cat-thulhu wrote:
I get more concerned with the idea that combats will be longer and more drawn out in 2e. The damage mitigation by shields only adds to this. At high levels pf1 combats become unbearably long and are the main facto rthat contribute to adventure fatigue and the desire to get the next AP going. Im kind of hoping pf2 combats will be shorter, consistently shorter over a greater range of levels.

Disagree whole heartedly. In fact, this is probably the biggest thing I want PF2 to address. I want to be able to have an interesting combat that lasts longer than 1 or 2 rounds with a small number of enemies. Maybe even just one boss. In PF1 the only way to make combats longer is to use specific defensive spells, load up on a bunch of mooks, or just inflate enemy HP to double the original intended HP. Even then it rarely goes past 3 rounds.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Your trying to make some sort of point that its ok not to have a realistic game. That's fine. my point was that no matter how hard you try your going to have some. its not a negative thing.

Also no the +3 halibut is just ridiculous their is nothing charming or funny about that unless your 5.

i take it you've never played monster hunter, where swinging giant swordfish, frozen tuna, and stuffed sharks are some rather fun (and surprisingly viable) options for combat.

Nope and sounds like I never will.

Sometimes to have a logical discussion you have to have common ground. To get to common ground it helps to get to the ground floor of an issue. he said (paraphrase) I don't want any realism at all in my games. A statement put most likely to extremely establish his point and make hims seem more unassailable in his stance. I am trying to say that their is probably some level of realism he would want as a way to establish that his stance is to extreme.

All your little hey I don't mind if a game doesn't have physics or logic or structure is just muddying the water.

my stance is that a game about heroes should allow for doing heroic deeds regardless of your vocation, and letting you live out the fantasy (in the fantasy game, no less) of your favorite storybook heroes/heroes of myth.

it's absolutely shameful how often the excuse of "it's not realistic" used to prevent anyone not playing merlin to do anything on a similar scale--never mind the crazy deeds of lancelot or galahad, or cu chulainn, or beowulf, and this is purposely staying away from the demigod-laden greek heroes (who too often get dismissed as "oh they're just demigods they don't count")--and simply because someone uses a sword and not a staff or wand. it's a fantasy game where the natural and supernatural go hand in hand (or blend entirely between each other) literally everywhere else in the system and setting, why NOT in martial classes?

edit: and i'll note that the PF2.0 legendary proficiencies are a tiny, fractional step in the right direction, which is a great start! the old mythic rules had some good bits here and there for it, but were near-impossible to use due to incredibly clunky mechanics or arbitrary limitations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Your trying to make some sort of point that its ok not to have a realistic game. That's fine. my point was that no matter how hard you try your going to have some. its not a negative thing.

Also no the +3 halibut is just ridiculous their is nothing charming or funny about that unless your 5.

i take it you've never played monster hunter, where swinging giant swordfish, frozen tuna, and stuffed sharks are some rather fun (and surprisingly viable) options for combat.

Nope and sounds like I never will.

Sometimes to have a logical discussion you have to have common ground. To get to common ground it helps to get to the ground floor of an issue. he said (paraphrase) I don't want any realism at all in my games. A statement put most likely to extremely establish his point and make hims seem more unassailable in his stance. I am trying to say that their is probably some level of realism he would want as a way to establish that his stance is to extreme.

All your little hey I don't mind if a game doesn't have physics or logic or structure is just muddying the water.

my stance is that a game about heroes should allow for doing heroic deeds regardless of your vocation, and letting you live out the fantasy (in the fantasy game, no less) of your favorite storybook heroes/heroes of myth.

it's absolutely shameful how often the excuse of "it's not realistic" used to prevent anyone not playing merlin to do anything on a similar scale--never mind the crazy deeds of lancelot or galahad, or cu chulainn, or beowulf, and this is purposely staying away from the demigod-laden greek heroes (who too often get dismissed as "oh they're just demigods they don't count")--and simply because someone uses a sword and not a staff or wand. it's a fantasy game where the natural and supernatural go hand in hand (or blend entirely between each other) literally everywhere else in the system and setting, why NOT in martial classes?

Who said anything about not letting martial classes do crazy things. Your threshold is still wayyyy off you do not understand what I am telling you. ALL I am saying is that their is going to be some realism in a game. All your examples are still WAY WAY to realistic for what I was talking about. WTF why did you even throw on "why NOT in martial classes" Who was even talking about that?

Because I certainly wasn't


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*looks around*
*equips Gloves of Improvised Might (+3)*
*Grabs Fish*

Let's do this!


It sounds like Legendary proficiency will open up Beowulf type action, high level play will be truly epic.


Vidmaster7 wrote:

Who said anything about not letting martial classes do crazy things. Your threshold is still wayyyy off you do not understand what I am telling you. ALL I am saying is that their is going to be some realism in a game. All your examples are still WAY WAY to realistic for what I was talking about. WTF why did you even throw on "why NOT in martial classes" Who was even talking about that?

Because I certainly wasn't

your repeated examples of absurd 0% realism situations (which are silly and should start to beg at least some realism to ground itself in), for as silly as you frame them, are by and large things that can be realistically accomplished in the pathfinder system right now... as a spellcaster. the only things being reigned in by begging realism in the face of that absurdity are generally things that aren't spellcasters.

edit: formatting, removed second line due to redundancy.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Your trying to make some sort of point that its ok not to have a realistic game. That's fine. my point was that no matter how hard you try your going to have some. its not a negative thing.

Also no the +3 halibut is just ridiculous their is nothing charming or funny about that unless your 5.

i take it you've never played monster hunter, where swinging giant swordfish, frozen tuna, and stuffed sharks are some rather fun (and surprisingly viable) options for combat.

edit: and then there's the monty python herring reference angle you could take as well, c'mon man.

Yeah, I immediately went there, Python and their fish (a herring, that piece of halibut, the double-fish face-slapping by the docks is my favourite).

Apparently the sequel to A Fish Called Wanda was to be called Death Fish 2, now that's wonderful.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Who said anything about not letting martial classes do crazy things. Your threshold is still wayyyy off you do not understand what I am telling you. ALL I am saying is that their is going to be some realism in a game. All your examples are still WAY WAY to realistic for what I was talking about. WTF why did you even throw on "why NOT in martial classes" Who was even talking about that?

Because I certainly wasn't

your repeated examples of absurd 0% realism situations (which are silly and should start to beg at least some realism to ground itself in), for as silly as you frame them, are by and large things that can be realistically accomplished in the pathfinder system right now... as a spellcaster. the only things being reigned in by begging realism in the face of that absurdity are generally things that aren't spellcasters.

edit: formatting, removed second line due to redundancy.

(apologies if self-replying isn't super kosher here, i don't want to keep re-editting the same post mid-converstion)

we already have 0% realism in the system, it's just selective.


AndIMustMask wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Who said anything about not letting martial classes do crazy things. Your threshold is still wayyyy off you do not understand what I am telling you. ALL I am saying is that their is going to be some realism in a game. All your examples are still WAY WAY to realistic for what I was talking about. WTF why did you even throw on "why NOT in martial classes" Who was even talking about that?

Because I certainly wasn't

your repeated examples of absurd 0% realism situations (which are silly and should start to beg at least some realism to ground itself in), for as silly as you frame them, are by and large things that can be realistically accomplished in the pathfinder system right now... as a spellcaster. the only things being reigned in by begging realism in the face of that absurdity are generally things that aren't spellcasters.

edit: formatting, removed second line due to redundancy.

(apologies if self-replying isn't super kosher here, i don't want to keep re-editting the same post mid-converstion)

we already have 0% realism in the system, it's just selective.

No not 0% I don't think I'm capable of describing 0 but if that is true give me an example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Who said anything about not letting martial classes do crazy things. Your threshold is still wayyyy off you do not understand what I am telling you. ALL I am saying is that their is going to be some realism in a game. All your examples are still WAY WAY to realistic for what I was talking about. WTF why did you even throw on "why NOT in martial classes" Who was even talking about that?

Because I certainly wasn't

your repeated examples of absurd 0% realism situations (which are silly and should start to beg at least some realism to ground itself in), for as silly as you frame them, are by and large things that can be realistically accomplished in the pathfinder system right now... as a spellcaster. the only things being reigned in by begging realism in the face of that absurdity are generally things that aren't spellcasters.

edit: formatting, removed second line due to redundancy.

(apologies if self-replying isn't super kosher here, i don't want to keep re-editting the same post mid-converstion)

we already have 0% realism in the system, it's just selective.

Well maybe 0% exact earth-like realism as by the rules. But Golarion is a world we, with our understanding of reality, can try to imagine.

I think another word for what Vidmaster tries to explain is 'causality' or 'consistency'.

In Golarion too, a tree is a tree and without magic intervention will likely be a tree in 5 minutes. A normal house has an outside and an inside and the inside isn't bigger than the outside, stuff like that.

If the gameworld didn't have this kind of 'realism' there would be no reference frame for what is normal or exceptional and it would just be like a drug-infused nightmare with things happening without cause and explanation.

If you want to play in such a world you don't need game rules at all. Because anything is possible.


Correct And I think I said chutulian nightmare but no one got that aparently.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Who said anything about not letting martial classes do crazy things. Your threshold is still wayyyy off you do not understand what I am telling you. ALL I am saying is that their is going to be some realism in a game. All your examples are still WAY WAY to realistic for what I was talking about. WTF why did you even throw on "why NOT in martial classes" Who was even talking about that?

Because I certainly wasn't

your repeated examples of absurd 0% realism situations (which are silly and should start to beg at least some realism to ground itself in), for as silly as you frame them, are by and large things that can be realistically accomplished in the pathfinder system right now... as a spellcaster. the only things being reigned in by begging realism in the face of that absurdity are generally things that aren't spellcasters.

edit: formatting, removed second line due to redundancy.

(apologies if self-replying isn't super kosher here, i don't want to keep re-editting the same post mid-converstion)

we already have 0% realism in the system, it's just selective.
No not 0% I don't think I'm capable of describing 0 but if that is true give me an example.

okay, some descriptions of no realism, from a familiar source:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

100%? ok so no realism at all? so no fall damage, my character keeps fighting while decapitated, Swimming in full plate, Wrestling a 50 foot tall 600 ton monster to the ground, Jumping to the moon, cutting a mountain in half with a dagger, making it rain ice cream, With no spells spontaneously sprouting tentacles, Grabbing a near by rainbow and contorting it into a sword with my bare hands, etc. etc. your down for all that I can think of more absurd examples if you want?

Some of those seem sillier then carrying extra shields which was a thing that actually happened.

bolded for emphasis. aside from your own examples, one can (in no particular order): create matter/energy from nothing (pretty much the entire conjuration and evocation schools), create an entire alternate reality with wholly different internal rules, link the space between two entirely different levels of existence (such as traveling between planes)--with the express purpose of dropping wood furniture on things if you'd like, accomplish things that are otherwise entirely impossible even in this fantasy world outside of direct interference of an actual capital G god (wish/miracle), and stopping time. this is just the CRB (and this is avoiding the usually shot down things like the square-cube law and larger creatures), and are all 100% unrealistic. the simple existence of magic ITSELF is 100% unrealistic, and is totally cool and acceptable to exist in the system/setting.


masda_gib wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Who said anything about not letting martial classes do crazy things. Your threshold is still wayyyy off you do not understand what I am telling you. ALL I am saying is that their is going to be some realism in a game. All your examples are still WAY WAY to realistic for what I was talking about. WTF why did you even throw on "why NOT in martial classes" Who was even talking about that?

Because I certainly wasn't

your repeated examples of absurd 0% realism situations (which are silly and should start to beg at least some realism to ground itself in), for as silly as you frame them, are by and large things that can be realistically accomplished in the pathfinder system right now... as a spellcaster. the only things being reigned in by begging realism in the face of that absurdity are generally things that aren't spellcasters.

edit: formatting, removed second line due to redundancy.

(apologies if self-replying isn't super kosher here, i don't want to keep re-editting the same post mid-converstion)

we already have 0% realism in the system, it's just selective.

Well maybe 0% exact earth-like realism as by the rules. But Golarion is a world we, with our understanding of reality, can try to imagine.

I think another word for what Vidmaster tries to explain is 'causality' or 'consistency'.

In Golarion too, a tree is a tree and without magic intervention will likely be a tree in 5 minutes. A normal house has an outside and an inside and the inside isn't bigger than the outside, stuff like that.

If the gameworld didn't have this kind of 'realism' there would be no reference frame for what is normal or exceptional and it would just be like a drug-infused nightmare with things happening without cause and explanation.

If you want to play in such a world you don't need game rules at all. Because anything is possible.

like i said earlier, things can be entirely unrealistic and still be reasonable/not entirely absurd.

i can totally agree that a settign should have some level of internal logic or consistency, but realism shouldn't be at all required (and in fact doing so is actively harmful when it creates a double-standard as to what realism does and doesn't get applied to, as is currently present in pathfinder)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Indeed, more than realism I think Vid is talking about logic and consistency.
A world with magic and dragons is definitely not realistic. This doesn't mean that a dropped rock doesn't fall, or that a Wizard can paint the sky pink because 'it's magic', or that a dragon can turn into an ice cream, without a reason (rules!).
Then, we have a theme: Golarion is a mostly a fantasy world. You can have a different setting, but every setting should be at least a little consistent with its theme. Having things happen that are absurd in that setting breaks what is called suspension of disbelief, and that's usually a bad thing for players.

Going back to shields breaking: it may or may not be considered a fitting thing for a fantasy setting. There are resons to say it is (ancient/medieval history and mythology, but also Tolkien as I said before); there are others to say it isn't (I didn't count many broken shields in 30 years of playing D&D and PF, so it's become harder to change that in our minds).

Paizo seems to be slightly changing the setting, in this sense. Shields will break more easily, which is more towards real-world realism, while legendary proficiencies should allow almost unbelievable things to happen, magic aside. But still within well defined rules. I'm cool with that.


on the shield topic as well: apparently their fragility varies rather wildly depending on the materials and enchants on them? so perhaps the worry of early breakage is merely an early game/shoddy materials problem.

i saw suggested somewhere a feat to do the same kind of shield actions/interposing with armor (with the same denting/breaking possibility--was it this thread or the actual shield article?), which could be pretty darn cool as well.


Elleth wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

A first level greatsword fighter is going to be doing 2d12+4 damage every round. That's more than enough to get two dents the first time you try to block that hit.

Maybe it's mechanically balanced, but treating shields as disposables you need a dozen of to last a day's worth of encounters feels terrible.

This is the most ridiculous possible 1st level damage (okay, technically a Barbarian can do 2d12+6, which is the actual most ridiculous).

It's technically doable, but it it isn't something 1st level PCs will almost never actually face. Most enemies do a lot less, with skeletons (for example) doing only 1d6 flat, and even most more dangerous enemies are more like 1d6-1d10+4 rather than 2d12.

Isn't it 2d12 (I assume crit?) + 6 + d10 (deadly)?

2d12 because of Power Attack feat, +4 Strength, +2 Rage. All potentially doubled on a crit.

I don't think we've seen a Deadly weapon that had more than 1d6 (maybe 1d8) base damage, and for many builds they won't have max stat attribute damage.


'Realism' as it pertains to fictional worlds with their own (consistent) natural laws is properly referred to as 'verisimilitude'.

And yes, it's pretty much required for an RPG though if you're willing to drop the G part you can probably ignore it to the extent your partners are willing to entertain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I prefer "Cinimatic Realism" to actual realism.
a.k.a. 'would it look believable on T.V. with good special effects?' And 'Is it reasonable for the world they live in?"

It is reasonable, and looks believable when a wizard farts lightning in a fantasy world. It is also reasonable when a swordsman effortlessly chops highly durable objects with their meteroic-iron/adamantine longsword.

It is less reasonable when a Human Fighter can survive submersion in lava or a normally deadly fall for purely mechanical reasons (He has enough HP to do so). Or when a Stirge 'pins' a Dragon. Or really anytime something only happens due to the unexpected interaction of disparete mechanics.

In that regard I think it is reasonable to expect shields to break against mighty blows, armor too really. Having equipment fail (or take damage for you) is a fairly common fantasy trope. Just take a gander at Fire Emblem for example. They go through equipment like mad!

As a game-balance element, breaking/repairing shields acts as a melee-tax the same way archers pay an arrow-tax. Having at least one fungable resource unique to your role is important.


to be fair, fire emblem weaponry appears to be made of a combination of glass and week-old bread. especially the ancient superweapons of yore.


AndIMustMask wrote:
i saw suggested somewhere a feat to do the same kind of shield actions/interposing with armor (with the same denting/breaking possibility--was it this thread or the actual shield article?), which could be pretty darn cool as well.

That was me (and possibly others elsewhere) who suggested an "Armor Block" feat. I was thinking about all those fantasy-anime where the heroes' armor breaks in lieu of them suffering a mortal injury on-screen.

Basically it would work just like the Shield Block Reaction, but using your armor instead. Your AC wouldn't improve though, as that is an element of 'raising the shield', not 'blocking with it'.


AndIMustMask wrote:
to be fair, fire emblem weaponry appears to be made of a combination of glass and week-old bread. especially the ancient superweapons of yore.

Yeah the 'superweapons' struck me as being made of modern plastics or something, high mohs hardness (and therefore cutting/stabbing power), but equally high brittleness.

Basic european 'iron-age' weapons are pretty flimsy though, you literally had to take a hammer to their 'edges' after every battle if you engaged with armored or shielded opponents. Imagine if your sword took a dent everytime it rolled under the Shield/Armor's Hardness... However those swords were also suprisingly pliant, you could practically twist them into a pretzel without snapping it (they could take dozens of dents).

I mainly mentioned Fire Emblem because you can easily search for visual examples of every single character in their equipment damanged (Low HP) and equipment undamaged (High HP) states. So it must be something that regularly happens in their world; making it cinimatically realistic for that sub-genre of fantasy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I got the impression FE weaponry was always at least partially magical with the enhancements split between longevity and power. Weapons in e.g. Fates and Echoes don't have limited durability because they draw power from the wielder (in either hp or other stats) while the highest-effort enchantments (the regalia et. al.) only start having limited uses if there power isn't maintained. The existence of a few magical sources that happen to give infinite-use weapons as a secondary effect of having significant power on their own seems to support this.

I mean, this is the series where you walk into a blacksmith and tell them to power up your spellbook.


Xenocrat wrote:
Elleth wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

A first level greatsword fighter is going to be doing 2d12+4 damage every round. That's more than enough to get two dents the first time you try to block that hit.

Maybe it's mechanically balanced, but treating shields as disposables you need a dozen of to last a day's worth of encounters feels terrible.

This is the most ridiculous possible 1st level damage (okay, technically a Barbarian can do 2d12+6, which is the actual most ridiculous).

It's technically doable, but it it isn't something 1st level PCs will almost never actually face. Most enemies do a lot less, with skeletons (for example) doing only 1d6 flat, and even most more dangerous enemies are more like 1d6-1d10+4 rather than 2d12.

Isn't it 2d12 (I assume crit?) + 6 + d10 (deadly)?

2d12 because of Power Attack feat, +4 Strength, +2 Rage. All potentially doubled on a crit.

I don't think we've seen a Deadly weapon that had more than 1d6 (maybe 1d8) base damage, and for many builds they won't have max stat attribute damage.

Ah, right, thanks! Somehow forgot about power attack.

I thought greatswords were both versatile and deadly for some reason. Hmm.

IIRC scythes are d10(deadly, trip)?


Voss wrote:
1-2 damage per block would feel incredibly terrible.

Yes, but being able to block 30+ points of damage in a fight (without feats or equipment that will make this ability even better), seems extremely powerful to me.

Does it seem right that Valeros would beat Amiri in a fight almost all of the time? Because I’m pretty sure in the current format that’s the case.

I think you’re going to see abuse and I think shield blocking is very underrated at this point in time.

Well maybe not underrated considering a dev said a level 11 character sometimes only takes single digit damage in combat.

Voss wrote:
Thats a lot of tracking. I'm not really sold on keeping track of item status, but a 1 increment damage ticker to 10 or 20 is asking for way too much bookkeeping.

You’re right, that is a lot of tracking.

Maybe you could solve both problems by having shields block a maximum of 5 damage (which is good but not too good) and shields don’t take dents?


Voss wrote:

I'd have a hard time bothering to track that, let alone burn actions and reactions on it.

[Even in 3.x and 3.pf, DR less than 5 didn't seem worthwhile to me, even at low levels]

Off topic, but that hasn’t been my experience. 2 DR makes a big difference at low levels. I have a character that has slowly moved from 1 DR to 5 DR over 9 levels and it’s made a huge difference, it’s like she has double the hit points (against physical attacks at least).

Paizo Employee Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:

Well maybe not underrated considering a dev said a level 11 character sometimes only takes single digit damage in combat.

To be fair, my character is designed with defense in mind as her primary focus and the single digit damage has only happened once so far. She's a bit lacking in the offense department and relies on her allies to do the big hits. She's just there to keep them safe. The tradeoff between offense and defense feels more significant than it did in 1E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:

I got the impression FE weaponry was always at least partially magical with the enhancements split between longevity and power. Weapons in e.g. Fates and Echoes don't have limited durability because they draw power from the wielder (in either hp or other stats) while the highest-effort enchantments (the regalia et. al.) only start having limited uses if there power isn't maintained. The existence of a few magical sources that happen to give infinite-use weapons as a secondary effect of having significant power on their own seems to support this.

I mean, this is the series where you walk into a blacksmith and tell them to power up your spellbook.

Weapons in Fates and Echoes don't break because disposable weapons was an almost universally reviled mechanic in the older games; in Echoes getting rid of it even let them do more interesting things with weapons that allowed you to build characters around the abilities of a specific weapon.

Like, Fire Emblem is a terrible example for disposable equipment because the mechanic created a meta where you only ever used the crappiest weapons you could get away with because getting top level gear was so inefficient and fragile. If a cruddy iron sword with 40 uses will do the job then you take that cruddy iron sword to end game.


Arachnofiend wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:

I got the impression FE weaponry was always at least partially magical with the enhancements split between longevity and power. Weapons in e.g. Fates and Echoes don't have limited durability because they draw power from the wielder (in either hp or other stats) while the highest-effort enchantments (the regalia et. al.) only start having limited uses if there power isn't maintained. The existence of a few magical sources that happen to give infinite-use weapons as a secondary effect of having significant power on their own seems to support this.

I mean, this is the series where you walk into a blacksmith and tell them to power up your spellbook.

Weapons in Fates and Echoes don't break because disposable weapons was an almost universally reviled mechanic in the older games; in Echoes getting rid of it even let them do more interesting things with weapons that allowed you to build characters around the abilities of a specific weapon.

Like, Fire Emblem is a terrible example for disposable equipment because the mechanic created a meta where you only ever used the crappiest weapons you could get away with because getting top level gear was so inefficient and fragile. If a cruddy iron sword with 40 uses will do the job then you take that cruddy iron sword to end game.

I sometimes try to keep my ingame and metagame explanations separate. Side note: it's interesting that the earliest-obtained unbreakable regalia in a game with otherwise breakable weapons is in the hands of a character known for breaking things during practice.


Jason S wrote:
Voss wrote:
1-2 damage per block would feel incredibly terrible.

Yes, but being able to block 30+ points of damage in a fight (without feats or equipment that will make this ability even better), seems extremely powerful to me.

Does it seem right that Valeros would beat Amiri in a fight almost all of the time? Because I’m pretty sure in the current format that’s the case.

I haven't seen Amiri's pregen, by I'm pretty sure that isn't going to work out so easily. She hits a lot harder than his shield can take, assuming she's not built terribly, she's doing 1d12+6 minimum. [Two handed weapon base, +4 for strength, +2 for raging] One average damage roll and that shield is right to the broken state, and blocked all of 5 damage. After that, she's got a huge edge.

It's related to why I think people are overestimating shield block. It's nice, but.. longsword with a 12 strength is putting a dent on average. That isn't a unreasonable weapon (the most common in the system) and statline to throw at a party in numbers. Compare to 3.x and 3.PF CR1 orcs for frame of reference- even their javelin strikes would put Dents in.

But Bandits with swords and bows are another staple for 1st level. A shortbow (1d8) is right on the edge of putting a Dent in reliably.

---
*Sidenote: don't get me wrong, I think 3.x orcs are terrible design for their CR1, they punch way too hard for their sad HP, making them rather absurd glass cannons
So while I won't be surprised or sad if orcs are changed in PF2, I really don't expect (and would find it really absurd if) shortbows and longswords to be out of bounds for CR1. With or without a small damage bonus.

Liberty's Edge

Voss wrote:
But Bandits with swords and bows are another staple for 1st level. A shortbow (1d8) is right on the edge of putting a Dent in reliably.

Uh...shortbows are 1d6. In both PF1 and PF2.

That said, 1d8+2 or so from a Longsword is also reasonable damage for level 0 foes (zombies do 1d6+4). Of course, vs. that level of damage (or anything similar), the shield is 15 prosthetic HP (more if you have a way to repair it on the fly), which is nothing to sneeze at when you're 1st level.


Huh, for some reason I thought it was d8 in pf2. Averaging the damage and deadly damage maybe?

Nuts. I was enthused with the idea that they'd be decent mainstay weapons, and the the more specialized longbow would be something relatively rare.

Why would it take 15 damage? Two 5s or a 10 and it should be broken.


It's two dents for broken, three dents for your shield to disappear into a fine mist.


Arachnofiend wrote:
It's two dents for broken, three dents for your shield to disappear into a fine mist.

I get that. I don't get a broken shield being usable.... because it's broken. If its intended to still be used, this is another laughably bad terminology problem.


I think a broken shield loses its benefits but can still be fixed later. A destroyed shield loses its benefits and can never be fixed.


Xenocrat wrote:
I think a broken shield loses its benefits but can still be fixed later. A destroyed shield loses its benefits and can never be fixed.

That would make sense. The destroyed is there for taking 10+ on your second hit, or someone specifically targeting a shield with an attack.

Assuming pf2 allows the latter. From what I've heard, sunder wandered off from the rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I kinda like the character concept of a dwarf that takes armor crafting, and is constantly making new shields or repairing his own between encounters. I wonder if the normal up to legendary crafting rules will help. Like is an expert or master quality shield significantly more durable? If so I could see the dent rules not being too bad.


Voss wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I think a broken shield loses its benefits but can still be fixed later. A destroyed shield loses its benefits and can never be fixed.

That would make sense. The destroyed is there for taking 10+ on your second hit, or someone specifically targeting a shield with an attack.

Assuming pf2 allows the latter. From what I've heard, sunder wandered off from the rules.

WHAT? that's my favorite mechanic though!

my super-sunder(including spells!) barbarian was the most fun I've had in years.

Liberty's Edge

Voss wrote:
Why would it take 15 damage? Two 5s or a 10 and it should be broken.

I'm not clear that a broken shield can't be used, but even if they can't (which is quite plausible), 10 prosthetic HP is still very good.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Voss wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I think a broken shield loses its benefits but can still be fixed later. A destroyed shield loses its benefits and can never be fixed.

That would make sense. The destroyed is there for taking 10+ on your second hit, or someone specifically targeting a shield with an attack.

Assuming pf2 allows the latter. From what I've heard, sunder wandered off from the rules.

WHAT? that's my favorite mechanic though!

my super-sunder(including spells!) barbarian was the most fun I've had in years.

It's unclear from the reference I caught if it's just that sunder is gone because you don't attack objects that way (you just go for Dents).

It would be very strange indeed if directly attacking someone's shield to wreck it wasn't in the rules. That's a fairly well-established fantasy trope/cinematic moment.


If a broken shield can't be used, I can't imagine how it goes from "broken" to "destroyed." I imagine the Glass Cannon Podcast can clarify this a little. Pretty sure a shield got destroyed there, and they were using it past the point of broken.


Captain Morgan wrote:
If a broken shield can't be used, I can't imagine how it goes from "broken" to "destroyed." I imagine the Glass Cannon Podcast can clarify this a little. Pretty sure a shield got destroyed there, and they were using it past the point of broken.

Pretty sure if it does double of your shields hardness, you get hit with two dents, so if you were one dent from broken/two dents from destroyed and you blocked that big an attack, it would be gone...but you'd be choosing to block that damage, so you'd have to be desperate enough to risk your shield, probably to prevent death.


Dire Ursus wrote:
I kinda like the character concept of a dwarf that takes armor crafting, and is constantly making new shields or repairing his own between encounters.

The Warrior background includes a skill feat called "Quick Repair", so this might actualy be a thing you can do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The intention of the rule clearly isn't "a shield can only take three hits." It can add to AC an indeterminate number of times, which presumably involves taking a hit. It can only take a few narratively significant hits, both as a balancing mechanic and because it presents an interesting choice.

Frankly, how is that not dead obvious?

51 to 100 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Can shields only take 3 hits All Messageboards