Had my 1st session in an Age of Ashes game yesterday. I went fighter for some "shield shenanigans".
It was a lot of fun. My shield only took damage from one attack. I completely blocked 3 or 4 attacks.
It took 5 damage. But for the life of me I cannot find the repair DC for a steel shield. It's probably in the manual, but I cannot find it on Archives of Nethys.
I got to 15 on me repair check, which I assume is enough, but I want to know the DC :)
The repair DC of an item is the same as the DC to craft it. A steel shield is a level 0 common item, so the repair DC is 14 (on the DC by level table)
Thanks!
I knew the craft and repair DC is the same, but both only list "GM's call" on the site.
|
Had my 1st session in an Age of Ashes game yesterday. I went fighter for some "shield shenanigans".
It was a lot of fun. My shield only took damage from one attack. I completely blocked 3 or 4 attacks.
It took 5 damage. But for the life of me I cannot find the repair DC for a steel shield. It's probably in the manual, but I cannot find it on Archives of Nethys.
I got to 15 on me repair check, which I assume is enough, but I want to know the DC :)
It depends on what kind of shield and your proficiency in crafting:
p. 277 lists all the shields and their HP and BT.
A Buckler has 6 HP while a steel shield has 20 HP for example.
All shields have no items levels listed, making them Level 0 items.
p. 503 lists dcs by level , a level 0 item has a dc of 14 by default without any other adjustments (going to assume your GM didn't consider the task worth adding modifiers)
You roll the repair roll, got dc 15, which is a normal success.
If you are untrained in crafting, you would restore 5 hp for the 10 minutes you spent repairing the shield. The number of hp repaired increases depending on your proficiency, if you are trained, you would restore 10 hp to the shield.
But yeah you did succeed in repairing the shield even if you were untrained.
Had my 1st session in an Age of Ashes game yesterday. I went fighter for some "shield shenanigans".
It was a lot of fun. My shield only took damage from one attack. I completely blocked 3 or 4 attacks.
It took 5 damage. But for the life of me I cannot find the repair DC for a steel shield. It's probably in the manual, but I cannot find it on Archives of Nethys.
I got to 15 on me repair check, which I assume is enough, but I want to know the DC :)
It depends on what kind of shield and your proficiency in crafting:
p. 277 lists all the shields and their HP and BT.
A Buckler has 6 HP while a steel shield has 20 HP for example.
All shields have no items levels listed, making them Level 0 items.
p. 503 lists dcs by level , a level 0 item has a dc of 14 by default without any other adjustments (going to assume your GM didn't consider the task worth adding modifiers)
You roll the repair roll, got dc 15, which is a normal success.
If you are untrained in crafting, you would restore 5 hp for the 10 minutes you spent repairing the shield. The number of hp repaired increases depending on your proficiency, if you are trained, you would restore 10 hp to the shield.
But yeah you did succeed in repairing the shield even if you were untrained.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
I already knew the rest. I also left out that I am trained in craft with Speciality Crafting Blacksmithing (Just realised I didnt add the +1 from this feat so I actually got to 16) :)
There were no special penalties for the check. We were some place safe and secure, and had plenty of time to do the repairs. I am going to be focusing on the Craft skill and looking forward to crafting my own items later.
Is shield repair another thing to add to the list of potential uses for Assurance? Or would it not get high enough
On paper it seems like shields will get broken rather quickly unless they are steel. But I haven’t played yet so I don’t know the kind of output creatures have on average
But at higher levels I assume there are tunes to increase the hardness (I haven’t got my book yet so am discovering things piecemeal )
Ok so here is a question that immediately came up in my group and I was hoping for a answer. Can any class use shields regardless of armor proficiency? Currently shields do not look to be classed as anything (not light, medium or heavy) so does that mean even a class only trained in unarmored defense can use a shield and if they then acquire the shield block feat use it to block damage as well?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Shields do not have a proficiency requirement.
|
|
Is shield repair another thing to add to the list of potential uses for Assurance? Or would it not get high enough
On paper it seems like shields will get broken rather quickly unless they are steel. But I haven’t played yet so I don’t know the kind of output creatures have on average
But at higher levels I assume there are tunes to increase the hardness (I haven’t got my book yet so am discovering things piecemeal )
It depends on many factors. What kind of material the shield is made of, how magical it is, etc...
Item level dc get very high, it starts at DC 14, at level 0.
At item level dc is 50 for a level 25 item.
But well more reasonably:
I believe the highest magic shields right now is item level 19 (DC 39 without any other modifiers)
It has hardness 20, 160 HP and a BT of 80 (Sturdy Shield)
Let say you are fighting a Balor (Level 20 monster) , a balor does 4d6+17 +1d6 evil or 4d8+17+1d6 evil damage on his sword or flaming whip.
for one action each. It is potentially a good amount of damage, but seems like the level 19 shield should be able to remove a good chunk of damage with the hardness 20.
The BT 80 would probably be reached every encounter around these levels (if you only fight brute monsters like Balors), assuming you don't manage to take down the monsters quick enough.
A level 19/20 you could potentially fight Treerazer according to the encounter chart building. But well, not going to use Treerazer as an example, since he is currently the strongest monster in the bestiary and definitely worthy of a campaign end boss.
Edit: Adamantine Golem are a special case too...they just destroy shields and armor on critical hits.
How many actions does it take to put on a shield?
Is it a single manipulate action?
Is it a minute, like armor?
Is it a manipulate to draw it, and another to "Wear" it?
Assuming it is sheathed/strapped/carried in some fashion like a weapon or other items that are meant to be readily available during combat. Not stored in a backpack or in the wagon with the other loot.
It should be an interact action to draw your shield like you would a weapon or a potion. At that point the shield does absolutely nothing for you other than make one of your hands not free any more. You need to spend another action to raise shield and get the circumstance(?) bonus to AC and be able to use the shield block reaction.
So a manipulate action to draw it, and another to make it useful.
Also even if you have Reactive Shield and Quick Shield Block, you can't use Reactive Shield and Shield Block against the same attack, because you can only use one reaction per trigger (in this case, the trigger being you getting hit).
But you could use Reactive Shield to rause your shield and get AC vs. one hit amd use Shield Block against another hit that round, since when you use Reactive Shield the shield stays up until your next turn.
I don't think that's right, actually.
Reactive Shield:
Trigger An enemy hits you with a melee Strike.This means it triggers when a hit is rolled, but before damage has been rolled.
Shield Block:
Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack.This implies it happens after damage has been rolled, but before it has been applied. So you can do both.
Also, I didn't notice that Reactive Shield only works in melee. That's interesting.
If understood properly....
1. Shield block - enables reduction of HP (based on shield hardness) if the shield is raised (using an action) - any physical damage
2. Reactive Shield - allows raise shield as a reaction increase your AC (+1/+2 depending on shield), but does not reduce damage and only applies to melee strikes
3. Quick shield block - grants an extra reaction each turn that can only be used for shield block...effectively allowing reactive shield and shield block in the same turn
^^is that accurate?
|
Unholy Necro! (No worries though, you're well enough on topic that the Gods will forgive you)
1) Correct.
2) Correct, this does not reduce damage unless it negates the attack altogether in which case you'd take no damage.
3) Yes. This is esp helpful because when you "blindly" decide to use your Reactive Shield Reaction and it fails to actually help it will have you in a state where you do have your Shield Raised and should that bonus AC not help and you take damage then you are able to resolve a normal Shield Block.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Secret Checks refer to rolls for actions a PC undertakes, but which are rolled by the GM instead of the player in secret because the PC wouldn't be aware of their own level of success, so the player isn't either. (Not that every GM does this, but I did this back in PF1, though I'd give players the option of rolling into a box where they couldn't see the result. Most passed on that offer.)
And yes, attack rolls are not secret checks, yet neither are enemy attack rolls revealed. While I and many others roll openly (except secret ones), most GMs cover NPC/monster rolls and are under no obligation to reveal them.
So as to this topic, there's no way to know if Reactive Shield will give you the bonus AC you need or not to avoid the blow, though it will put it up for future attacks that round and as noted you can use Quick Shield Block's Reaction too. Compare to Guardian's Deflection which explicitly lets you know if interposing your shield will improve the outcome.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the rules say one way or the other whether the GM has to reveal the number rolled by the monster, or just the outcome. Although in the "example of play" at the start of the CRB the GM (Erik) does so:
Erik: Not quite enough—you gain the sickened 1 condition, which is going to give you a –1 penalty to most of your d20 rolls. Next, it lunges at you, trying to bite you!
James: Oh no! I use my reaction to nimbly dodge out of the way.
Erik rolls an attack roll for the ghast, getting an 9 on the die. Looking at the monster’s statistics, he adds 11 for a total of 20. Merisiel’s AC is normally 19, but the Nimble Dodge feat lets her use her reaction to increase her AC by 2 against a single attack. In this case, it turns the ghast’s attack into a miss.
Erik: Does a 20 hit you?
James: Nope, just missed!
Erik: You twist away from the ghast as its tongue leaves a slimy film on your armor. With its final action, the undead menace lashes out at you with its claw.
I've played quite a lot of online PFS with different GMs who all like different settings with regards to how much information they "leak" to the players about the monsters. And I've come to realize that I actually prefer the setting where you get a lot of information; when you see what the monster rolled, and what its bonus was. It's a bit on the edge whether you consider that metagaming: you can figure out whether the monster is actually good at what it just did (high bonus, low roll), or just got a lucky (lower bonus, higher roll). But you're only getting this information when the monster actually uses the ability, not by going behind the GM's back and reading its Bestiary entry. So you're interacting with the scene, and you still have to make guesses about the abilities of the monster that haven't been field-tested yet.
I like this "gradual reveal" effect in play because when you go to use your more precious options (an expensive alchemical bomb, a high level spell slot) you want to have an idea whether this enemy is worth spending it on, or if the chance of it landing are good. So you might first spend a round sizing up the enemy before committing your more limited resources.
Likewise, if you notice that an enemy has scary high numbers, that also gives you the idea that it's time to either retreat or pull out all the stops.
But the key is that this is information that's emerging during actual play. Looking at the numbers is a little bit meta, not that much. Your PC can see how the monster is moving, whether it seems like a practiced high-skill attack or just got lucky. You can see the dice. You're observing the same thing, just through a different lens.
I don't think the example says whether James knows the roll or not, only the result, and that's after he's already chosen to Nimble Dodge.
Yes, Ascalaphus, that's why I roll in the open when it's an effect the PCs can see and measure. Otherwise one would be obliged to be descriptive enough to give the same info anyway. One has to get across that the Large Giant (Ogre) differs from the Large Giant (Hill Giant) when they're dressed the same and swinging similar weapons. One has much more power.
And the looks on my players' faces when I roll low then inform them they've been it... :-)
But while open rolling has gained in popularity (in fact, in the early days of DnD no DM did it that I know of) it's still optional.