RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, in real life wooden shield WERE the disposable part of equipment. Considering that every disposed shield saves one's life, ppl never minded to have an extra one in their luggage :)
I know this was said a while ago but:
Shields were never designed to be disposable on the battlefield. A broken shield would mean a broken arm or worse. There were breakable shields for training or ritual, but the design of the shield throughout history was to have them as durable as possible.
Possibly the most quoted to be disposable was the Viking round shield. However, their design points towards something that could easily handle multiple axe blows and still provide protection. They were laminated layers of wood laid out for max strength, with a metal shield boss and either a hide or metal rim along the edge. Some would even have a facing of rawhide or thin metal for more durability.
My favorite shield, the Greek aspis, had several forms of fabrication but there were some that were laminated wood covered in bronze. The bowl shape added more strength and allowed hoplites to breath in the middle of their battle shoves.
This isn't to say that shields didn't break in the middle of battle, but most shields were able to handle blow after blow without becoming useless. There were certainly types of damage that made them useless, such as a large weapon becoming lodged in them and making them heavier and harder to maneuver.
Shields certainly took damage in battle, but most damage was repairable. Bosses could be hammer out, layers of laminated wood added, rims and facing replaced.
This is all to say that I am okay with the denting but I think shields are too disposable with the current rules.
TL;DR - The idea that shields were disposable is a widespread myth with more evidence against it than for it. Shields were made to be highly durable.
Where are you getting the idea that a 6 hardness shield would have to take 12 damage to get a dent? it dents at 7 damage, 12 does 2 dents and breaks it.
|
i'm gonna use my fav new item for this thread: sturdy shield.
assuming that level 1 adventurers are pleb commoners picking up semi-sharp sticks of iron as weapon and disposable shields, from level 2 and onwards that they start gearing, they can start buying those!
the level 2 "sturdy shield" is "expert light wooden shield" with 3 dents and a hardness of 6, which means that it needs to take 12 damage to get dented.
since the're wooden, we can say that they could be the semi-disposable viking shields. Certainly able to take a few hits before becoming broken (and needing repairs)
the level 4 variant, or "light steel" can be compared to the greek one, sure, bronze is softer than steel, but they probably aren't layered upon layered. Still, 8 hardness means 16 damage to start taking dents.
and then we can get to the crazy ones, at levels 10+ made from special materials, where even dragon strikes have trouble denting them.
seems about right. no
No, I don't think that's right; IMO you don't apply Hardness twice per RAW, at least that's my interpretation. Here is what the rulebook says :
An item reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness. The Hardness of various materials is explained in the Materials section on page 354. If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage.
I can understand the first sentence is confusing because it implies that each item can completely ignore damage equal to its Hardness. However, I don't think that's the case, you ignore damage only if it's less than its Hardness, if it's equal or greater the item takes one or two Dents. It does seem likely to me that a single attack can only inflict max. two Dents, so if your shield can take 3 Dents it can absorb twice its Hardness but the next attack will break it (I was likely wrong, items can't be outright destroyed by a single attack). Anyway, that's my interpretation of RAI.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, its impossible to argue this point when the words in the book are simply wrong. Shield Block doesn't even clearly identify HOW MUCH damage the shield takes, as evidenced by the many interpretations in this very thread. Strictly grammatical analysis would lean towards the shield being subjected to the damage that it blocks, which means its hardness (or less), so if it DOES then reduce it's damage by its hardness, it never takes any dents. We all know that's not the intent, so we each decide WHICH rule to change so it 'makes sense'...
We instead need to just accept, for now, that it doesn't makes sense. Wait a few days for the correct dev to provide input and ideally updated rules text. Until then, arguing over the math that we are think is based on a different error in the book, is pointless.
i'm gonna use my fav new item for this thread: sturdy shield.
assuming that level 1 adventurers are pleb commoners picking up semi-sharp sticks of iron as weapon and disposable shields, from level 2 and onwards that they start gearing, they can start buying those!
the level 2 "sturdy shield" is "expert light wooden shield" with 3 dents and a hardness of 6, which means that it needs to take 12 damage to get dented.
since the're wooden, we can say that they could be the semi-disposable viking shields. Certainly able to take a few hits before becoming broken (and needing repairs)
the level 4 variant, or "light steel" can be compared to the greek one, sure, bronze is softer than steel, but they probably aren't layered upon layered. Still, 8 hardness means 16 damage to start taking dents.
and then we can get to the crazy ones, at levels 10+ made from special materials, where even dragon strikes have trouble denting them.
seems about right. no
No, I don't think that's right; IMO you don't apply Hardness twice per RAW, at least that's my interpretation. Here is what the rulebook says :
An item reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness. The Hardness of various materials is explained in the Materials section on page 354. If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage.I can understand the first sentence is confusing because it implies that each item can completely ignore damage equal to its Hardness. However, I don't think that's the case, you ignore damage only if it's...
This sentence you quoted says you subtract twice:
For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents.10-3=7. Is 3 go into 7 twice? Yes, explains the 2 dents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So Reading this over and over I think I have a simple wording that corrects the confusion.
First, we need to clarify hardness works in the same format as damage reduction. It reduces the incoming damage and any remaining is then applied to the wielders HP.
So Shields have a Hardness (aka DR) of (X). If incoming damage (before hardness is applied) is equal to twice the hardness it gains a dent, if the damage is triple or more it gains two dents and the broken condition.
So do I got that correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules issue here is two-fold:
First: The example on page 175 under assumes that a shield has taken (blocked an attack of?) more than three times it's hardness in damage (10 over 3), and is dented twice. However it doesn't specify why it was damaged... With only one example it is impossible to establish a definate pattern. If the example had also included the result of the said shield taking 4 points of damage instead of 10; we could establish the intent at least.
Second: The description of the Shield Block action on page 309 appears to stipulate (likely erroneously) that the shield takes 'the amount of damage it prevented you from taking', which is an amount 'up to its hardness', and then references you back to the apparantly contradictory example on page 175.
My opinion is that the Shield Block entry is in error, and the shield takes the same amount of damage the character otherwise would have. For example: If the goblin deals 4 damage and you Shield Block with a wooden shield: You take 1 damage (the shield prevents you from taking 3 damage). The Shield takes 4 damage, since 4 is greater than or equal to the shield's hardness it takes 1 Dent (the shield is Dented).
If the goblin had dealt 6 or more damage the shield would have broken. No amount of damage would destroy it in one hit.
The trouble is in the phrasing.
First, are the rules stating a fact, then restating it for clarification or are they saying step 1 then step 2?
Second, and why it's hard to determine the first, the word "damage" denotes two different numbers: the amount coming in and the amount that gets through.
I favor a shield taking a dent if the initial damage gets past Hardness. Having just ran a shield-Paladin through DD1, I can say they're pretty darn awesome enough. Between the attacks that missed and the attacks he blocked, he effectively tripled his h.p. or more.
Without taking a dent because none of it was over 5 h.p.
I tend to agree with the idea that the shield blocks it's hardness, and the damage it is exposed to is the damage the wielder doesn't take (the DR amount, equal to the hardness). This damage to the shield is not reduced by the hardness. This means that any attack that is blocked that does the shield's hardness or greater results in a Dent. And attack that is blocked that does less than the shield's hardness does not cause a dent.
In designing it this way, it makes things much simpler. You only have to deal with once number - the hardness. On a shield block, you simple have to subtract the hardness from the attack's damage. If that number is greater than zero, the character takes that damage, and the shield takes a dent. Clean and simple, and able to be exhibited in a relatively small sidebar.
Alternatively, and even simpler would be to have the shield block bypass the 'Item Damage' rules, and simple apply the Dent directly.
|
There is no need to apply DR twice. You apply DR once, the shield takes the rest of the damage. However, we don't track damage on a shield (presumably it can take small hits all day long); instead, we only track hits that do enough damage in one blow to dent it. This threshold is (coincidentally) at the level of DR. You simply need to apply at least 6 damage to a hardness 5 shield to cause some (irrelevant) damage and at least 10 to dent it.
There's a bit of a disconnect here I think. The 'Hardness reduces damage' is in the 'Item Damage' section, which I no doubt was written as a general rule to handle any item damage (just as it was in 1e). As such, if assumes a given item is hit with some damaging effect (of which they haven't actually put in the game). As such, they had hardness come in just as it did in 1e - it reduces the effective damage the items takes from the hit. This whole section seems like it was originally written expecting sunder or break object actions to be triggering it. For the playtest, however, it appears there IS no sunder or break action, and the only thing that might trigger item damage is the shield block. I think the different things (Item Damage, Shield Block) have gone through various changes independent of each other, and thus we are here with a mechanism that really doesn't work no matter how you interpret it. That's fine - it's a playtest and I assume it will be addressed this week in some form or another.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until a developer states something to the contrary, this is how I am going to rule it:
An attack hits a fighter with a raised shield (where H = shield hardness)
Attacker rolls X damage.
X - H = E, the effective damage dealt to the fighter as well as the shield.
If E > 0 the fighter subtracts E from their HP.
If E ≥ H the shield takes a dent
If E ≥ H x 2 the shield takes two dents
Until a developer states something to the contrary, this is how I am going to rule it:
An attack hits a fighter with a raised shield (where H = shield hardness)
Attacker rolls X damage.
X - H = E, the effective damage dealt to the fighter as well as the shield.
If E > 0 the fighter subtracts E from their HP.
If E ≥ H the shield takes a dent
If E ≥ H x 2 the shield takes two dents
That's how I assumed it was supposed to work except I was running it as
If x ≥ H the shield takes a dent
If x ≥ H x 2 the shield takes two dents
Basicly if the shield doesn't stop all the damage then it dents, gonna have to reread the appropriate sections before tonight.
|
|
nah you do "apply it twice"
RAW says that you subtract damage euqal to Hardness
Then you check the damage, if it's more than hardness, then you dont get a Dent.Basically, I think that the RAI was to make it :hardnessx2 =1 dent, hardness x3= 2 dents
the reason they couldn't simply go with "double initial hardness and simply subtract" is because it would cause the 2nd dent to actually come much later (damagex4)
THat can also be infered by new materials having more or less half the hardness of the old system where they could simply get damaged and not have to worry about dents and such.
(this reply to Starbuck_II as well)
Hmmm, I guess the wording is really obscure, and it could be interpreted either way. I can see your point there. This makes me wish they'll drop the whole Dented/Broken subsystem; I feel it's another needless rule nobody really bothers (or even remembers) to keep track of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like dents as an idea.
The problem will come at higher levels where your shield can't soak enough to bother even carrying it. For some reason magic weapons add damage dice (so now heroes are useless without their toys), but shields don't improve their soak damage at the same rate.
What I'd do:
Say that 'broken' shields can't soak hits anymore, but they can still grant an AC bonus, because you deflect the aural instead of blocking it.
The Unbreakable Shield doesn't block nearly as much damage as other legendary shields, but it is a great base for your shield boss and as a back-up so that you always have a working shield.
I'm still confused as to where anyone is getting the idea that you have to double hardness to take a dent when the rules clearly say that if the damage equals or exceeds the hardness you take a dent.
I'm still confused as to where anyone is getting the idea that you have to double hardness to take a dent when the rules clearly say that if the damage equals or exceeds the hardness you take a dent.because the sentence before the one you said says to first subtract hardness from damage and THEN check if damage>hardness
the idea i'm getting is that since now "hardness" is old "hardness+structure" is why this seems weird to a lot of people with a first look.
but soon, if you realize that hardness is simultaneously BOTH the DR AND the HP, it starts to make sense.
It says that an item reduces damage dealt to it by it's hardness and if it takes damage equal too or exceeding its hardness it takes a dent.
I don't see anything in there that indicates that these are two separate, ordered steps where you resolve one completely before moving on to the next.
I'm still confused as to where anyone is getting the idea that you have to double hardness to take a dent when the rules clearly say that if the damage equals or exceeds the hardness you take a dent.because the sentence before the one you said says to first subtract hardness from damage and THEN check if damage>hardness
the idea i'm getting is that since now "hardness" is old "hardness+structure" is why this seems weird to a lot of people with a first look.
but soon, if you realize that hardness is simultaneously BOTH the DR AND the HP, it starts to make sense.
It says that an item reduces damage dealt to it by it's hardness and if it takes damage equal too or exceeding its hardness it takes a dent.
I don't see anything in there that indicates that these are two separate, ordered steps where you resolve one completely before moving on to the next.
2 things:
1st: if it reduces damage equal to it's hardness, then it can't simultaneously take a dent if it takes exactly as much as it's hardness, since that's a zero.
2ndly, if they WEREN'T two steps, then the whole first sentence is redundant.
if they weren't 2 steps, the whole section could have been written in 1 sentence:
item damage: if an item takes damage equal to it's hardness, it gets's a dent, if takes twice or more, it takes two"
no need for the whole "reduce damage by hardness" at all.
plus, since new hardness is old hardness+structure, it makes sense to be counted twice.
Dents represent damage to an object in lieu of tracking item HP, it would make absolutely no sense for an object to take damage and not take a dent.
I don't think Hardness and Dents work like ya'll think they work. A goblin that deals 4 damage to a wooden shield (3 hardness) is supposed to dent it, 7 or more is supposed to break it, and even a million damage shouldn't destroy it. Unfortunately the rules are hopelessly unclear.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From page 175 in the Playtest Rulebook:
If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage. Some magical or especially sturdy items can take more than 1 Dent before becoming broken, as noted in their descriptions.
The bolded text is what I actually experienced at PaizoCon when playing Valeros. That was ONE hit.
Also note that it says that if it takes another Dent after becoming broken it is now destroyed beyond salvage.
In another thread I also suggested that the higher the quality the more Dents it should be able to take. I would suggest something like this:
Expert = +2 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 5/Dents 4)
Master = +4 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 7/Dents 6; Mithral Shield = Hardness 5/ Dents 6; Adamantine Shield = Hardness 10/Dents 6)
Legendary = +6 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 10/Dents 8; Mithral Shield = Hardness 8/ Dents 8; Adamantine Shield = Hardness 13/Dents 8; Orichalcum Shield = Hardness 16/Dents 8)
I would also have the level of potency on a shield (if it can have potency, the rules on runes only say armor, so it's unclear) add an extra dent for each '+' the rune grants (if it added an extra '+2' hardness per potency level that would be great and make magic shields far more useful).
At higher levels it is still possible to blow through the shield completely, but it is less likely to happen on any single hit.
I would also have AT LEAST this apply to weapons too. It should be difficult to destroy a Legendary magic sword.
On a side note: I would love to have the Hardness listed for weapons and armor on their tables, and for special/magical weapons and armor in at least the Item Description (if not also on their tables).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From page 175 in the Playtest Rulebook:
If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage. Some magical or especially sturdy items can take more than 1 Dent before becoming broken, as noted in their descriptions.The bolded text is what I actually experienced at PaizoCon when playing Valeros. That was ONE hit.
The example is basically useless to what's being argued here though. One side reads the hardness/shield block rules as saying that you subtract the hardness from the damage first, then compare the remaining damage to the hardness of the shield to see if it gets a dent.
So, for example: If a hardness 3 shield is used to block a 5 damage attack, it would take 0 dents because 5-3=2 and 2 is less than the hardness of the shield.
A wooden shield taking 10 damage would take 2 dents in this reading either way because 10-3=7 and 7>double the hardness of 3.
The other side (me) is saying that you don't subtract the hardness first and then check the hardness against the remaining damage. You simply check to see if the incoming damage is greater than or equal to the shield's hardness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I think it might need some clarification but I think the double hardness route is the better way to do it.
From page 175 in the Playtest Rulebook:
In another thread I also suggested that the higher the quality the more Dents it should be able to take. I would suggest something like this:
Expert = +2 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 5/Dents 4)
Master = +4 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 7/Dents 6; Mithral Shield = Hardness 5/ Dents 6; Adamantine Shield = Hardness 10/Dents 6)
Legendary = +6 Dents (Cold Iron Shield = Hardness 10/Dents 8; Mithral Shield = Hardness 8/ Dents 8; Adamantine Shield = Hardness 13/Dents 8; Orichalcum Shield = Hardness 16/Dents 8)I would also have the level of potency on a shield (if it can have potency, the rules on runes only say armor, so it's unclear) add an extra dent for each '+' the rune grants (if it added an extra '+2' hardness per potency level that would be great and make magic shields far more useful).
At higher levels it is still possible to blow through the shield completely, but it is less likely to happen on any single hit.
I would also have AT LEAST this apply to weapons too. It should be difficult to destroy a Legendary magic sword.
This right here is in my mind one of the only ways to not be driven crazy by the the exploding shield problem.
In my mind, 2 dents for a broken shield is entirely insufficient. If I continue to use dents for shields in here, I'm probably going to have to house rule it to something similar.
I think Paizo could do with flat out doubling the hardness almost every material in PF2, as well as significantly increasing the number of Dents typical objects can sustain.
These changes would also filter down into shields, but I would be happy with significantly improving the rules for shields (and shield too).
If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents. A typical item can take only 1 Dent without becoming broken. A second Dent causes it to become broken, though it can still be repaired. An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage. Some magical or especially sturdy items can take more than 1 Dent before becoming broken, as noted in their descriptions.The bolded part of this text is what makes the example useless without another example. "Equal to or greater than." It is saying that even if you took 1 million damage. the shield only takes 2 dents.
This means that an undented shield can-not explode in a single hit. However, if your shield has already taken every dent it can take before being broken, then raising it is a risk of two more dents, and thus, shield-splosion. (totally trade-marking that word by the way.) I like this, as it makes the choice a tactical choice. First you increase your AC and adsorb some damage. Then, after the few hits and it goes to "two-dents-from-death", you have a choice to make. You can simply settle for just keeping the AC boost every turn. or you risk losing it completely, in return for absorbing some damage.
Actually, if the shield already has 2 dents, it's broken, and CAN'T be raised again - as such, I'm not sure it will ever get destroyed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until a developer states something to the contrary, this is how I am going to rule it:
An attack hits a fighter with a raised shield (where H = shield hardness)
Attacker rolls X damage.
X - H = E, the effective damage dealt to the fighter as well as the shield.
If E > 0 the fighter subtracts E from their HP.
If E ≥ H the shield takes a dent
If E ≥ H x 2 the shield takes two dents
This is how the rules seem to work.
I really like, potentially, how shields will work in PF2. The rules had me confused, like many posters in this thread, and I ran to listen to the GCP play during PaizoCon just 3 months ago to get clarification. Jason Bulmahn's running the game, so one hopes he's got the rules right.
https://glasscannonpodcast.com/the-pathfinder-playtest-part-7/
1 hour and 3 minutes into play.
Fighter has shield raised, gets hit for 26 points of damage. Shield with 9 hardness (so hardness numbers have changed) takes off 9 points of damage. Shield and fighter both take 17 points of damage. Shield gets 1 dent since damage taken is higher than 9, but lower than double its hardness (18).
So with the rules "settled", we can return to the issue of whether or not shields are too flimsy.
A heavy-steel-shield wielder with an AC of 19 (with shield raised) battles against a CR 1 hobgoblin. The hobgoblin has +7 to hit and 1d8+2 damage with its longsword.
The goblin hits 40% of the time. It can only dent the steel shield (5 Hardness) on a max damage roll:
8+2=10; hardness shaves off 5, leaving 5 to equal the hardness and cause a dent
So with a 40% change to hit and a 1/8 (12.5%) chance of actually denting, there's just a 5% chance of receiving a dent without taking critical hits into consideration of the math. There's a 2% chance of the shield taking a dent on a -5 second attack.
Critical hits throw that math out the window, but even still I don't think the shield wielders are going to be getting dents too often when applying the rules as Jason did.
A CR 1 creature to a level 1 party is supposed to be a standard or low-threat boss. The math here seems reasonable to me at level 1 without breaking everything down even more. I'm not sure how this mechanic will scale though. Would be nice if somebody would look up some stats. I'm not sure at what level you're intended to have legendary equipment, shield of other materials, etc, and finally taking critical hit damage into consideration. I'd pop it into a spreadsheet and figure it out but I'm guessing that Jason and Mark Seifter, the other mad scientist, already have done that, and the math is passing my eye test.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
while correct. if it only takes 1 dent on attack 1. it could THEN take two more on the next attack, and thus be destroyed. (Also I believe there are shields with more than 3 dents eventually.) This is why I worded it as "do you shield block when only 2 dents from destroyed."
Actually, if the shield already has 2 dents, it's broken, and CAN'T be raised again - as such, I'm not sure it will ever get destroyed.
That is not actually correct as currently written. There is no rule that states 3 dents and it's destroyed. The written rule is:
An item that would take a Dent or become broken while already broken is destroyed beyond salvage.
As written, the only way to destroy an item is to damage it while it's already broken. Since the shield block isn't possible with a broken shield, and since there is no sunder mechanic, it's impossible under current written rules to destroy the shield (or any item, for that matter - since there is no other mechanic for actually damaging any object).
Until a developer states something to the contrary, this is how I am going to rule it:
An attack hits a fighter with a raised shield (where H = shield hardness)
Attacker rolls X damage.
X - H = E, the effective damage dealt to the fighter as well as the shield.
If E > 0 the fighter subtracts E from their HP.
If E ≥ H the shield takes a dent
If E ≥ H x 2 the shield takes two dents
This is how the rules seem to work.
I really like, potentially, how shields will work in PF2. The rules had me confused, like many posters in this thread, and I ran to listen to the GCP play during PaizoCon just 3 months ago to get clarification. Jason Bulmahn's running the game, so one hopes he's got the rules right.
https://glasscannonpodcast.com/the-pathfinder-playtest-part-7/
1 hour and 3 minutes into play.Fighter has shield raised, gets hit for 26 points of damage. Shield with 9 hardness (so hardness numbers have changed) takes off 9 points of damage. Shield and fighter both take 17 points of damage. Shield gets 1 dent since damage taken is higher than 9, but lower than double its hardness (18).
So with the rules "settled", we can return to the issue of whether or not shields are too flimsy.
A heavy-steel-shield wielder with an AC of 19 (with shield raised) battles against a CR 1 hobgoblin. The hobgoblin has +7 to hit and 1d8+2 damage with its longsword.
The goblin hits 40% of the time. It can only dent the steel shield (5 Hardness) on a max damage roll:
8+2=10; hardness shaves off 5, leaving 5 to equal the hardness and cause a dentSo with a 40% change to hit and a 1/8 (12.5%) chance of actually denting, there's just a 5% chance of receiving a dent without taking critical hits into consideration of the math. There's a 2% chance of the shield taking a dent on a -5 second attack.
Critical hits throw that math out the window, but even still I don't think the shield wielders are...
So it sounds like the system has been changed in two ways: dents instead of h.p. and Hardness being both the number subtracted and the number compared to final damage to check if it's enough for a dent.
The latter explains why Hardness seems to be half as much in PF2!And yes, it does seem strange you can't attack an enemy's items. (At least one demon does.)
And now to figure out if an attack that breaks an item and does extra Dents also destroys that item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The devs have stated that the hardness 9 used in the podcast preview was an error and that it has never been that high (9 is the hardness of steel objects but shields are classified as thin steel objects, so have a hardness of only 5).
I highly doubt that it has been changed, it works the same way, just with a lower number than was being erroneously used in the preview game.
The devs have stated that the hardness 9 used in the podcast preview was an error and that it has never been that high (9 is the hardness of steel objects but shields are classified as thin steel objects, so have a hardness of only 5).
I highly doubt that it has been changed, it works the same way, just with a lower number than was being erroneously used in the preview game.
It saddens me that this mistake could've led to Troy's character surviving the adventure.
The shield is taking the damage only up to shield block, the rest goes to the PC so I don't see how a shield can take more than a dent with the current RAW
The situation where the shield takes 2 dents is more a RAI than RAW
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So sorry for reopening this can of worms and a stupidly long post:
Shield Block, Page 309 says:
"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. See page 175 for rules on dented and broken items."
Trouble language: "the shield take THIS damage instead"
Presumably, "THIS damage" is referring to what was just written before... "an amount of damage up to its Hardness".
SO, according to the Shield Block Reaction, only 1 dents worth of damage, and thus 1 dent, can be dealt to the shield per use of the Shield Block Reaction. Any remaining damage is passed to the player... since, "Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage UP TO its Hardness"
It then cals usl to page 175. Which only muddies the water on how the SPECIFIC (remember specific overrides general guideline - pg 299) Shield Block Reaction actually works... the call to page 175 only seems to be there to get you in the right part of the book to figure out how much damage each shield can absorb and how many dents they can take before breaking.... The problem is, it goes on to detail the amount of dents a shield can take from one source of damage. This doesn't seem possible RAW because we have no way to target shield, armor etc. Strike only targets creatures.
MY GUESS/THEORY:
Paizo removed sundering action/activity not because it was unpopular, but because it is unbalancing, OP, and probably not that fun for anyone at the table. They also accidentally left in echoes of sunder rules (broken condition, the confusing bits from pg 175, AC for traps with no way to target them, & the demolishing structures rules in bestiary).
2 reason why sunder was probably OP and removed:
1) Multiple Damage dice make denting and destroying objects arbitrary... even at 1st level... cleric casts magic weapon on fighter with great sword... 2d12 plus strength could dent or even break a shield outright.
2) Crit fishing - We now also crit on 10 over target AC and have multiple attacks/round from lvl 1...any way to debuff AC and make it easier not only to hit, but also to crit would quickly become the most optimal way to play and deal obscene amounts of damage (Player and DM alike).
Paizo, love ya, please fix. And if we can have sunder work in this edition, without breaking the game, that would be amazing. Please, thanks.
The shield is taking the damage only up to shield block, the rest goes to the PC so I don't see how a shield can take more than a dent with the current RAW
The situation where the shield takes 2 dents is more a RAI than RAW
I +1 this.