Can shields only take 3 hits


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Shield Rule from redit Pregen

Redit Shield spoiler:
You snap your shield into place to deflect a blow. Your shield prevents you
from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness—the shield takes
this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken. If the shield
takes damage equal to or exceeding its Hardness (5), the shield takes a
Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness
(10) in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. The shield can take only 1 Dent without
becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it
can still be repaired. If the shield would take a Dent or become broken
while already broken, it is destroyed beyond salvage

Based on this, if a shield is hit with 6 damage 3 times then that shield is destroyed. This is almost easier than sundering the shield, in 3 strikes the job is done with less damage. This means you'll be going through more shields than quivers of arrows.

I'd rather suggest taking a number of dents equal to the hit points of the shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, that is what playtesting is for.

I wonder what kind of damage our opponents will be doing? From the description above it would seem that shields will quickly become useless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is just when using a feat to block the blow (as opposed to just increasing AC), correct?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The player has to use the shield to block the hit. So the player makes the choice if they want to destroy the shield or take the hit. I dont think you can attack the shield to destroy it that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Souphin wrote:

Shield Rule from redit Pregen

** spoiler omitted **

Based on this, if a shield is hit with 6 damage 3 times then that shield is destroyed. This is almost easier than sundering the shield, in 3 strikes the job is done with less damage. This means you'll be going through more shields than quivers of arrows.

I'd rather suggest taking a number of dents equal to the hit points of the shield.

I don't think objects have hit points as such anymore (or at least shields don't), instead they can take a certain number of dents. Also, I expect that different shields will have different hardness and/or dent tolerance.

Come to think of it, I'm almost certain one of the devs mentioned that for high-level shield users, choosing between a shield with high hardness and few dents and one with lower hardness and more (possibly infinite) dents was a relevant choice.

Silver Crusade

Repairing objects was only a cantrip in PF1. If the same is the case in PF2, that cantrip will simply become more popular.

I don't think you're supposed to rely on interposing your shield like this as a major tactic. It's supposed to be something you do to save yourself when you have no other choice.


Based on the descriptions I've heard, only instances in which an attack's damage inflicted exceeds (and thus bleeds through) the Shield's DR count as Dents. If so, you can use the action any number of times against weaker foes, but 3 against high-powered enemies which sounds reasonable.

Also, while I have no special knowledge or examples to show, the genera trend in PF2s math makes me think enemy's attacks will generally be inflicting less base damage now in recognition of the increased prevalence of multiple attacks and critical hits.

Dark Archive

Does this means just carry several shields?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In PF1, a shield couldn’t absorb damage from any attacks without breaking, because it couldn’t absorb damage from attacks. An emergency 7hp at level one is a good deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Souphin wrote:
Does this means just carry several shields?

You can:

- Carry several shields. (If they’re available at first level, they’re eventually pretty cheap.)
- Only block one attack per combat and repair after.
- Learn the Shield cantrip as a backup.
- At high levels, use Paladin abilities to regenerate your shield, or buy the very high-level indestructible shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to be able to easily add STR to Shield Hardness.

Silver Crusade

Secret Wizard wrote:
I'd like to be able to easily add STR to Shield Hardness.

That strikes me as a worthwhile class feat for shield-using classes like Paladins and Fighters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
I'd like to be able to easily add STR to Shield Hardness.
That strikes me as a worthwhile class feat for shield-using classes like Paladins and Fighters.

Could be, I'm still unsure where a sensible power-level for feats is.

I'd hate saying "oh, I'll never use a shield, I don't have the STR-to-hardness feat, I might as well forget it".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I want a feat to apply Strength to shield AC while raised. Give something for DEX to be envious of for once.

I would also like a feat to be able to 'ready myself' to tank a hit with my armor. Basically using your armor as a shield to block, only without the AC bonus. As a second line of defense for the stalwart defender.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that 5 hardness shield is just for a low-end shield and that at higher levels you can get shields with more hardness. I seem to recall some mention of that but I don't know where. And as Tristram and Hargert stated, I think the hardness only comes into play when you're using a reaction to reduce damage from a hit, not for just using it for extra AC. So you're in control of if you want to take a dent (or sacrifice the shield if you already have dents) to prevent some damage.

And historically shields did break. Viking duels famously included rules for the number of shields a participant can use (usually three). Might not be quite as fun in Pathfinder to have to go through multiple shields for one fight though. But this is a test to see how things work.


Uh, from the playtest the shields weren't breaking that fast.

Since hardness reduces damage, it might mean it needs to take its hardness in damage after hardness reduction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I think that 5 hardness shield is just for a low-end shield and that at higher levels you can get shields with more hardness. I seem to recall some mention of that but I don't know where. And as Tristram and Hargert stated, I think the hardness only comes into play when you're using a reaction to reduce damage from a hit, not for just using it for extra AC. So you're in control of if you want to take a dent (or sacrifice the shield if you already have dents) to prevent some damage.

And historically shields did break. Viking duels famously included rules for the number of shields a participant can use (usually three). Might not be quite as fun in Pathfinder to have to go through multiple shields for one fight though. But this is a test to see how things work.

If my memory serves, the indestructible shield has a hardness of 13 and never takes dents, and another shield of adamantine and high hardness had a hardness of 26 or 29, while lacking the nice benefit of never having to worry if your shield might shatter, and those were probably the top end of shields.


Souphin wrote:
I'd rather suggest taking a number of dents equal to the hit points of the shield.

Yeah, I said the same here in a post, which got moved to the organized play forum for some reason.

I did the playtest demo and scenario (Rose Street) last week at Origins and I have some concerns about Shield Block:
1) It seems too powerful. Blocking 5-10 damage, multiple times, is a big deal. Or if it can block 4 or less damage indefinitely.

2) Shields don’t get damaged and destroyed that easily in real life, and certainly not in seconds.

My concern is that since the ability is powerful, people will find ways to make it work or ways around it:
- Adamantine shields
- Lots of shields in a Handy Haversack or Bag of Holding

I LIKE the idea of shield block, I feel like it would be better if:
1) Shield blocks blocked less damage. If it blocked only it’s AC in damage (1-2 damage per block, more with feats or if the shield was magical), it would be good without being too good.

2) Shields should get damaged at a much slower rate. For example, if a wooden shield has 10 hit points, it takes 1 hit point per hit that does more than 5 damage. A metal shield has 20 hit points and takes 1 point of damage when the blocked attack does more than 10 hit points of damage. Or use dents instead of hp, it doesn't matter. I guess what I’m saying is that the shield should be able to take more than 3 dents before being destroyed.

Thank you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason S wrote:
Souphin wrote:
I'd rather suggest taking a number of dents equal to the hit points of the shield.

Yeah, I said the same here in a post, which got moved to the organized play forum for some reason.

I did the playtest demo and scenario (Rose Street) last week at Origins and I have some concerns about Shield Block:
1) It seems too powerful. Blocking 5-10 damage, multiple times, is a big deal. Or if it can block 4 or less damage indefinitely.

2) Shields don’t get damaged and destroyed that easily in real life, and certainly not in seconds.

My concern is that since the ability is powerful, people will find ways to make it work or ways around it:
- Adamantine shields
- Lots of shields in a Handy Haversack or Bag of Holding

I LIKE the idea of shield block, I feel like it would be better if:
1) Shield blocks blocked less damage. If it blocked only it’s AC in damage (1-2 damage per block, more with feats or if the shield was magical), it would be good without being too good.

2) Shields should get damaged at a much slower rate. For example, if a wooden shield has 10 hit points, it takes 1 hit point per hit that does more than 5 damage. A metal shield has 20 hit points and takes 1 point of damage when the blocked attack does more than 10 hit points of damage. Or use dents instead of hp, it doesn't matter. I guess what I’m saying is that the shield should be able to take more than 3 dents before being destroyed.

Thank you.

1-2 damage per block would feel incredibly terrible. I understand that it might have come off as strong during your game, but reducing it below 4 damage might be balanced (This is going to be based on price of shields, value of character's reaction and actions compared to raising shield) in some ways, but it'll likely feel terrible in practice. Blocking 5 damage feels good at level 1, and if in turn shields come off as as more disposable, I might be fine with that.

I'll admit I don't know much about shields, but if say dealing more damage than the hardness to the shield is a serious blow to the shield, wouldn't it be reasonable that after one or two serious blows that the shield would need repair? Otherwise, the AC bonus and damage = or below hardness represent glancing off and blows that don't heavily damage the shield.


Jason S wrote:


I LIKE the idea of shield block, I feel like it would be better if:
1) Shield blocks blocked less damage. If it blocked only it’s AC in damage (1-2 damage per block, more with feats or if the shield was magical), it would be good without being too good.

That's a trivial amount of damage. 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]

Quote:
2) Shields should get damaged at a much slower rate. For example, if a wooden shield has 10 hit points, it takes 1 hit point per hit that does more than 5 damage. A metal shield has 20 hit points and takes 1 point of damage when the blocked attack does more than 10 hit points of damage. Or use dents instead of hp, it doesn't matter. I guess what I’m saying is that the shield should be able to take more than 3 dents before being destroyed.

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.

Paizo Employee Developer

9 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who's played a shield-wielding character for some time (11th level now!), I can confirm that shields can both take more dents and reduce more damage at higher levels. I've also never really found myself concerned with the fact that I only use one shield. I've had fights where by the end of the fight I've only taken a total amount of damage in the single digits thanks to a combination of my fighter's AC and her shield. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


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.

Having to replace shield is at least more realistic.


MusicAddict wrote:
If my memory serves, the indestructible shield has a hardness of 13 and never takes dents, and another shield of adamantine and high hardness had a hardness of 26 or 29, while lacking the nice benefit of never having to worry if your shield might shatter, and those were probably the top end of shields.

Effective DR in the upper 20s is pretty impressive, well worth the limitation of having to repair it after a few hits. And 13 all day long is also pretty useful. Of course I'm not sure what kind of damage numbers we'll be seeing in PF2, it might well be higher than PF1 at higher levels because of the multiple dice instead of static bonuses, so these might be a bit less spectacular than they sound.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The most important thing to remember is the required reaction. Not counting class feats*, you can only block once per round. And only if you raised your shield on your turn and you don't need your reaction for an AoO or something else.

I know PF2 is meant to have somewhat longer fights than PF1, but most fights in PF1 were done (or as good as done) within the first 3-4 rounds. Longer fights might mean like 4-6 rounds. To care about the dents, you need to:

- Spend an action to raise your shield.
- Have your reaction ready and not plan to use it on something else.
- Be attacked.
- Suffer more damage than your shield's hardness.

Seems unlikely to happen more than two or three times in 4-6 turns. If repairing a shield between fights (via Crafting or casting Mending) is possible, up to 3 dents seem plenty.

Also makes the first wizard multiclass feat look pretty useful. Getting two cantrips could give you mending and the Shield spell as a backup.

*They mentioned a fighter feat that gives a free reraction for a shield block per round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 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.

Having to replace shield is at least more realistic.

Realism is a completely pointless metric that has zero correlation with how fun a mechanic is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 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.

Having to replace shield is at least more realistic.

If I wanted realism, I wouldn't play a DnD variant.


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

Having to replace shield is at least more realistic.
Realism is a completely pointless metric that has zero correlation with how fun a mechanic is.

Realism to a point. To say all realism is a pointless metric is disingenuous. I assume you don't want a system that is so far from reality that it seems like a chuthulian nightmare?

Their is some level of realism you want I would assume. Just a matter of how much.


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

Having to replace shield is at least more realistic.
Realism is a completely pointless metric that has zero correlation with how fun a mechanic is.

Realism to a point. To say all realism is a pointless metric is disingenuous. I assume you don't want a system that is so far from reality that it seems like a chuthulian nightmare?

Their is some level of realism you want I would assume. Just a matter of how much.

No, I 100% stand by the statement that realism is completely pointless. What's important is that PF2 feels like a fantasy game. Fantasy heroes don't walk around with five extra shields strapped onto their back because they need to rotate them out to be the party's sword and board guy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Actually the rainbow one sounds pretty cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Souphin wrote:
Does this means just carry several shields?

You can:

- Carry several shields. (If they’re available at first level, they’re eventually pretty cheap.)
- Only block one attack per combat and repair after.
- Learn the Shield cantrip as a backup.

I’m pretty sure your second bullet point is the way the Power is intended to be used, and all the stuff about hardness and dents is there to obfuscate the fact that Shield Block is, functionally, an Encounter Power. Your third bullet point is just the Wizard version of the Power, which gets away with being more direct about its one-minute cooldown because it’s a spell.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MusicAddict wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I think that 5 hardness shield is just for a low-end shield and that at higher levels you can get shields with more hardness. I seem to recall some mention of that but I don't know where. And as Tristram and Hargert stated, I think the hardness only comes into play when you're using a reaction to reduce damage from a hit, not for just using it for extra AC. So you're in control of if you want to take a dent (or sacrifice the shield if you already have dents) to prevent some damage.

And historically shields did break. Viking duels famously included rules for the number of shields a participant can use (usually three). Might not be quite as fun in Pathfinder to have to go through multiple shields for one fight though. But this is a test to see how things work.

If my memory serves, the indestructible shield has a hardness of 13 and never takes dents, and another shield of adamantine and high hardness had a hardness of 26 or 29, while lacking the nice benefit of never having to worry if your shield might shatter, and those were probably the top end of shields.

iirc the Adamantine Shield was hardness 18 (I could be wrong), but I seem to remember the unbreakable shield as 13, too.

Looking at fight scenes in films, the hero's shield breaking early due to the bad guy's onslaught is a common trope - one I have felt was missing from d&d/Pf for some time (well, forever). I'm glad they introduced it.


I like the idea of STR to Hardness for shield based DR. Also for absorbing the blow with regards to dent accrual.

I'd rather dents reduce a shields Hardness by one, becoming broken at 0 Hardness and Destroyed the following blow.

Although this is all based on the scraps of information we have to work with. I'm sure it'll look completely different when the playtest drops and make it's own kind of sense.


I'm still getting used to having to take an action to get an AC bonus from your shield, at all; so it's just the shield block Reaction that can damage your shield, and any damage above the shield's Hardness tramples over to the character and the shield takes a dent?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I'm still getting used to having to take an action to get an AC bonus from your shield, at all; so it's just the shield block Reaction that can damage your shield, and any damage above the shield's Hardness tramples over to the character and the shield takes a dent?

That's what they've been saying so far, yes. Just raising your shield for the AC bonus has no risk of getting a dent in it, no matter how often you are attacked.

Not counting sunder maneuvers or similar effects, of course.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I think that 5 hardness shield is just for a low-end shield and that at higher levels you can get shields with more hardness. I seem to recall some mention of that but I don't know where. And as Tristram and Hargert stated, I think the hardness only comes into play when you're using a reaction to reduce damage from a hit, not for just using it for extra AC. So you're in control of if you want to take a dent (or sacrifice the shield if you already have dents) to prevent some damage.

And historically shields did break. Viking duels famously included rules for the number of shields a participant can use (usually three). Might not be quite as fun in Pathfinder to have to go through multiple shields for one fight though. But this is a test to see how things work.

If my memory serves, the indestructible shield has a hardness of 13 and never takes dents, and another shield of adamantine and high hardness had a hardness of 26 or 29, while lacking the nice benefit of never having to worry if your shield might shatter, and those were probably the top end of shields.

iirc the Adamantine Shield was hardness 18 (I could be wrong), but I seem to remember the unbreakable shield as 13, too.

Looking at fight scenes in films, the hero's shield breaking early due to the bad guy's onslaught is a common trope - one I have felt was missing from d&d/Pf for some time (well, forever). I'm glad they introduced it.

Thorin Oakenshield was so called because of a broken shield and an improvised replacement.


Blave wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I'm still getting used to having to take an action to get an AC bonus from your shield, at all; so it's just the shield block Reaction that can damage your shield, and any damage above the shield's Hardness tramples over to the character and the shield takes a dent?

That's what they've been saying so far, yes. Just raising your shield for the AC bonus has no risk of getting a dent in it, no matter how often you are attacked.

Not counting sunder maneuvers or similar effects, of course.

Thanks, got it, and you only use the lower of your armour or shield proficiency when using both?

This definitely makes shields more dynamic (proactive and reactive), hopefully get your 1,800 Abdominal Muscles on.


Megistone wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I think that 5 hardness shield is just for a low-end shield and that at higher levels you can get shields with more hardness. I seem to recall some mention of that but I don't know where. And as Tristram and Hargert stated, I think the hardness only comes into play when you're using a reaction to reduce damage from a hit, not for just using it for extra AC. So you're in control of if you want to take a dent (or sacrifice the shield if you already have dents) to prevent some damage.

And historically shields did break. Viking duels famously included rules for the number of shields a participant can use (usually three). Might not be quite as fun in Pathfinder to have to go through multiple shields for one fight though. But this is a test to see how things work.

If my memory serves, the indestructible shield has a hardness of 13 and never takes dents, and another shield of adamantine and high hardness had a hardness of 26 or 29, while lacking the nice benefit of never having to worry if your shield might shatter, and those were probably the top end of shields.

iirc the Adamantine Shield was hardness 18 (I could be wrong), but I seem to remember the unbreakable shield as 13, too.

Looking at fight scenes in films, the hero's shield breaking early due to the bad guy's onslaught is a common trope - one I have felt was missing from d&d/Pf for some time (well, forever). I'm glad they introduced it.

Thorin Oakenshield was so called because of a broken shield and an improvised replacement.

I forget, was that in the book, or film, only?

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

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.


That actually seems unlikely since their is now like 2 more actions then before. (3 action system + reaction instead of the 2). Hmm It does seem that it might be closer to the same duration through out at least. As long as damage scales well.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Megistone wrote:
Gavmania wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:
Doktor Weasel wrote:

I think that 5 hardness shield is just for a low-end shield and that at higher levels you can get shields with more hardness. I seem to recall some mention of that but I don't know where. And as Tristram and Hargert stated, I think the hardness only comes into play when you're using a reaction to reduce damage from a hit, not for just using it for extra AC. So you're in control of if you want to take a dent (or sacrifice the shield if you already have dents) to prevent some damage.

And historically shields did break. Viking duels famously included rules for the number of shields a participant can use (usually three). Might not be quite as fun in Pathfinder to have to go through multiple shields for one fight though. But this is a test to see how things work.

If my memory serves, the indestructible shield has a hardness of 13 and never takes dents, and another shield of adamantine and high hardness had a hardness of 26 or 29, while lacking the nice benefit of never having to worry if your shield might shatter, and those were probably the top end of shields.

iirc the Adamantine Shield was hardness 18 (I could be wrong), but I seem to remember the unbreakable shield as 13, too.

Looking at fight scenes in films, the hero's shield breaking early due to the bad guy's onslaught is a common trope - one I have felt was missing from d&d/Pf for some time (well, forever). I'm glad they introduced it.

Thorin Oakenshield was so called because of a broken shield and an improvised replacement.
I forget, was that in the book, or film, only?

I'm pretty sure that it's in the book, too. When I saw the movie I already knew about that.


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)?

Also, may as well chip in on the realism Vs fantasy thing.
Lv1 enemies aren't going to be doing as much as that (though d12+3 I can see being expected from an enemy beserker, which is 0-3 dents but most likely 1-2), but as said barbarian you can literally chop enemy shields in half with damage to spare. Which, IDK. That sounds plenty fantasy to me.


Cat-thulhu wrote:
I get more concerned with the idea that combats will be longer and more drawn out in 2e.

Me too, mainly due to the 4-tiers of success system and micro-actions, also gotta keep an eye on Reactions, and it looks like things have more hit points in PF2.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

(edit: no seriously, cu chulainn did several things near those all by himself, iirc the knight-templar astolfo doing some silly things with the moon in english mythology, the legendary weapon caladbolg/-fwlch/thing-that-excalibur-was-based-on literally a mountain splitting rainbow-sword?)

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

I'm hoping they're shorter in real time, but longer in game turns. My experience in PF1 has us rarely going past 3 or 4 rounds and often being more like 2, but that can take a very long time especially at the high levels. Going say, 5+ rounds in less than an hour would both make things feel quick and interesting, while giving more room for tactical maneuvering. A multi-hour slog for a few rounds can get to be a bit much.

Of course this is all highly variable based on the group and such.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

I don't mind combats taking a few rounds more if those rounds are over more quickly. We get fewer spells, which should reduce caster bookkeeping and decision-making and we get fewer attacks per round on average (no more rolling 8 TWF+haste attacks per round) which become even less with 2-action-abilities like Power Attack. Also, monsters seem to be a bit more streamlined, so you might save time on checking their feats and such.

I'm not saying combats will take less time. That remains to be seen. I could however image that the duration of a players or monsters turn can be quite a bit shorter in PF1. Also, I find my (somewhat inexperienced) players often take quite some time to figure out their movement. With no more general AoO, that will probably improve, as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
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.
I'm hoping they're shorter in real time, but longer in game turns. My experience in PF1 has us rarely going past 3 or 4 rounds and often being more like 2, but that can take a very long time especially at the high levels. Going say, 5+ rounds in less than an hour would both make things feel quick and interesting, while giving more room for tactical maneuvering. A multi-hour slog for a few rounds can get to be a bit much.

Yes, I would like that too, realising after an hour long combat that only 2 or 3 actual rounds of game world time went by is always jarring to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 to 50 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