Shield numbers are... worrying

[Draco18s]

Duskreign wrote:

I agree, its a slippery slope. But I do think a brief beta test would have been good. If I recall, PF1 went through alpha and beta tests and that was already on top of pretty polished 3.5 game (ymmv).

I think overall, PF2 is very solid, but a beta test would have caught some of the language omissions and rules edge cases that exist now.

Oh the shield problem existed in the playtest. It was pointed out by multiple people, myself included.

I still think PF2, despite the issues we keep finding, is in better shape than Shadowrun 6E. Which publicly posted the first errata a month before the core book was even out and the errata itself was riddled with typos and other errors.

(And that's ignoring that the system itself is a garbage fire attempting to get older edition players on board by stealing mechanics from older editions and then making a complete mess with things)

[Zapp]

The ShadowShackleton wrote:

I agree this seems like an oversight for now but it is easily remedied as they release more books.

I'd definitely prefer it if they errataed the CRB shields, than merely "stealth errataed" them by making them obsolete.

[Zapp]

FowlJ wrote:

>=50% chance for most attacks to be more than your shield could survive is a bit much, however.

The chance of this happening is not 50% or 10% or even 1%.

It is either 0% or 100%, since the player gets to hear the damage incoming before he must decide to use his shield block.

That doesn't mean the shield block gets any better. It does mean there is zero chance of getting your shield destroyed unless you want it to be destroyed.

[thenobledrake]

Draco18s wrote:

I still think PF2, despite the issues we keep finding, is in better shape than Shadowrun 6E. Which publicly posted the first errata a month before the core book was even out and the errata itself was riddled with typos and other errors.

(And that's ignoring that the system itself is a garbage fire attempting to get older edition players on board by stealing mechanics from older editions and then making a complete mess with things)

Shadowrun 6th edition is actually in better shape, both error- and playability-wise, than the game has ever been.

And while putting out an errata before the street date of the book is strange timing, it makes sense for errors to be caught between sending the book to the printer and the books arriving on shelves to be bought...

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a long-term fan of Shadowrun that doesn't get how a new edition of a game can "steal" from prior editions of the same game. Did Pathfinder 2nd "steal" rolling against DCs?

[Draco18s]

thenobledrake wrote:

But hey, what do I know? I'm just a long-term fan of Shadowrun that doesn't get how a new edition of a game can "steal" from prior editions of the same game. Did Pathfinder 2nd "steal" rolling against DCs?

Go look at how Initiative worked in (I think, 2nd) Edition, then look at 4th, then look at 6th.

Or go back to 3rd and look at the "combat pool" (and related other pools). They were removed for 4th because they were "too complicated." Yet that exact mechanic is what they turned Edge into.

It's stealing in the sense that the mechanic went unused for an edition (or two) and then was added back in again. PF2 can't "steal" from PF1 because it was already in the system and simply moved forward. But if PF2 had gone back to THAC0, then yes, that would be stealing from an earlier edition.

Edit:
Ah, initiative was more like SR1:
This post:

Quote:

- there is only one IP/turn (so IPs are effectively gone)

- You get Inititive dice + 1 Minor actions

Which unless I'm missing something means that a sam with three dice can act twice before a character with lower Initiative does anything. In other words, SR1. Firearms are a single skill, also like SR1. And the whole concept of soaking only with body while armor is compared to the weapon's Power Attack Rating IMO sounds a lot like the old damage scaling. So I'm waiting for them to reveal the Skill Web. biggrin.gif

[Captain Morgan]

Duskreign wrote:

One other effect I think shields has had on the game is that in order to make the shield math generally work, its pigeon holed the math of creatures to be pretty same-y on the same levels. There are some outliers though.

I don't think that has much to do with shields. Creatures of similar levels need to have similar stats to make encounter building guidelines worth a damn.

[BishopMcQ]

Draco18s wrote:

Edit:
Ah, initiative was more like SR1:
This post:

Quote:

- there is only one IP/turn (so IPs are effectively gone)

- You get Inititive dice + 1 Minor actions

Which unless I'm missing something means that a sam with three dice can act twice before a character with lower Initiative does anything. In other words, SR1. Firearms are a single skill, also like SR1. And the whole concept of soaking only with body while armor is compared to the weapon's Power Attack Rating IMO sounds a lot like the old damage scaling. So I'm waiting for them to reveal the Skill Web. biggrin.gif

Nice to see some of the veteran DSers are still kicking. Haven't been that way since early SR5.

[Draco18s]

BishopMcQ wrote:

Nice to see some of the veteran DSers are still kicking. Haven't been that way since early SR5.

(Note: I don't really consider myself one of the "veterans", I started playing just before 4th and only had one or two sessions with 3rd, and there's folks that have been with things since 1st).

Its mainly two fold:
1) the folks who didn't play 5E kept playing...whatever version they were playing, they're just not posting
2) the folks showed back up because of a new edition (even if it was just to "peek in and see what it looks like") and have otherwise drifted away

I'm more in the second category as I'm no longer in college playing 3 games a week. I play one. And lately that group has been playing Pathfinder (but we decided to detour through SR4 for a while).

But yeah, the old grognards are still around. And the grognards like 6th even less than they like 5th (and for a lot of the same reasons).

[thenobledrake]

Draco18s wrote:

It's stealing in the sense that the mechanic went unused for an edition (or two) and then was added back in again.

That is a very odd reasoning for using a word with as much negative connotation as "stealing" has.

I'm not going to engage in the off-topic debate that your comment about the pools of old and edge of new has sparked though... maybe if I ever remember my credentials for a Shadowrun-focused message board and see that kind of talk there.

[Draco18s]

thenobledrake wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

It's stealing in the sense that the mechanic went unused for an edition (or two) and then was added back in again.

That is a very odd reasoning for using a word with as much negative connotation as "stealing" has.

The old grognards see it as a bait-and-switch kind of tactic. "Hey remember this mechanic you really liked? 6E has it!"

Also remember that Catalyst didn't work on editions 1-3 and Jason Hardy didn't get (as) involved in the design of the system until 5th, so a lot of grognards don't agree with his view of what "the game should be."

So no, I don't think "stealing" has too many negative connotations. It is stealing: The designers went rifling through the past to find the things people liked about old editions, slapped them all into the same book, and called it a simplified re-envisioning. And they didn't beta test it, or even have someone from outside the company even look at it because "it would have stolen sales from 5th."

Shadowrun is Catalyst's White Elephant. They didn't want it ten years ago, they don't want it now, they don't care about it. They're only producing the material because that was part of the deal that got them Battle Tech (and Battle Tech isn't doing well either).

[The Gleeful Grognard]

I would like to remind people that the general idea is for a equal level encounter to be a fairly 50/50 fight with a PC.

So comparing a level 16 shield to the strikes of a level 16 monster is a bit odd imo. Using the encounter building guidelines explains more of what the game expects.

And in those situations that is where shield blocks still have some value. It isn't like raise shield ever stops being useful.

The numbers could be boosted a bit and not harm the game, but they still need to be in the 1-2 hits to break if used on equal level foes imo. Nor do we have enough high level npcs to gauge how some elements will balance out.

I also don't believe that all magical shields should be great at shield blocking strong hits, reflecting shield for instance is described as what would be a fairly weak shield but has a powerful magical effect. I am fine with it wimpering at taking hits from a giant's boulder.

[Squiggit]

I don't think anyone's saying every shield should be amazing at shield blocking.

The problem is that, right now, most of the magical shields in game are built on level 1 statlines. So you have a level 18 magic item with the stats of a level 1 item.

The problem is that, right now, there's one shield that's good at shield blocking. Even special material shields that are supernaturally tough and especially rare (orichalcum and adamantine) are significantly worse at shield blocking than a standard magic sturdy shield.

The other special material shields are just kinda junk period too.

[WatersLethe]

I looked over the numbers and the following shields can be outright destroyed in one average hit from a monster two levels lower than the shield:

Reflecting Shield (Warsworn 35 avg damage)
Floating Shield (greater) (Crag Linnorm 36.5 avg damage)
Arrow-Catching Shield (Young Blue Dragon 26.5 avg damage)
Floating Shield (Young Blue Dragon 26.5 avg damage)

At <= 9 shields all shields are useful against average hits from enemies up to roughly the shields' level.

At higher levels, all the non-sturdy shields are useful against enemies ~3 levels lower.

At level, or slightly higher, will yield a lot of destroyed shields after level ~9.

So, yes, if you take a low hit and want to reduce it by a bit and break or destroy your shield you can. No one would ever do that, unless they knew for sure the saved damage would keep them on their feet because the bonus AC on later turns, or the shield's other features are more useful.

What I want to point out, though, is that you shouldn't be replacing your shield every level.

Is it that unreasonable to buy a shield at level 9 and expect to use it to block at level 11?

I grant you that the shield math isn't as bad as I initially thought, since you can pick and choose when to block. However, it certainly does feel off. Having a shield and only using it against the weakest attacks feels weird. A light shield breaking under one big hit is fine by me, but forcing a player to consider permanently losing a big magic item or taking a tiny fraction of a hit's damage off to stay on their feet seems unfair.

It'd be like me putting in a rule that says: "At any time you can choose to take 6 less damage from an attack by letting the attack lop off your arm."

It's like... geez that's a bit over the top. I guess it's better to have the option than not, but... yikes.

Would others feel okay about a rule change that said a shield cannot be permanently destroyed from full HP with one attack?

That would allow these shields to more frequently fulfill their blocking duties while keeping some shields expressly better at that duty than others, without requiring a bunch of math changes or special materials.

[Ascalaphus]

I feel it would have been nice if both sturdy and adamantine shields had been on different points on the Pareto front, like:

* Sturdy shield has decent hardness but LOTS of hit points.

* Adamantine shield has a bit higher hardness hardness but not nearly as many hit points as the sturdy shield.

So then the sturdy shield could absorb some really hard blows without failing. The adamantine shield is more efficient against lots of smaller blows but doesn't cope as well with spike damage from crits.

That then creates a trade-off to think about.

[Duskreign]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Duskreign wrote:

One other effect I think shields has had on the game is that in order to make the shield math generally work, its pigeon holed the math of creatures to be pretty same-y on the same levels. There are some outliers though.

I don't think that has much to do with shields. Creatures of similar levels need to have similar stats to make encounter building guidelines worth a damn.

One dial can be turned up while another is turned down. More damage could mean less HPs or lower AC. There are ways to still balance the encounter. I think the game would be better for it with more of these adjustments. I just think Shields is one of the things that is thus far limiting these changes.

[Temperans]

It's kind of weird that the one item which has traditionally been always better for defense (both irl and in PF) has so few ways to scale for better defense (not talking proficiency).

***********
Also may I ask why they made Orichalcum considerably better than both Adamantine and Living Steel? It has higher defenses than both (except unbreakable, but that's a magic shield) and can fully repair itself in 24hr (Living Steel had a rate of 2hp/day while not broken).

I mean Orichalcum has become the end game material: You can get boosts to initiative, more weapon properties, 1/day unbreakable shield, and all of them fully repair in 1 day.

[Fumarole]

Temperans wrote:

It's kind of weird that the one item which has traditionally been always better for defense (both irl and in PF) has so few ways to scale for better defense (not talking proficiency).

Is it though?

[vagabond_666]

Fumarole wrote:

Temperans wrote:

It's kind of weird that the one item which has traditionally been always better for defense (both irl and in PF) has so few ways to scale for better defense (not talking proficiency).

Is it though?

I'm pretty sure that what that video demonstrates is that One on One:

Reach > Sword & Shield > Sword & No Shield > Trying to wield a weapon that should be used in 2 hands in one hand while holding a shield.
And that bucklers suck.

And also that in mass combat:
Spear & Shield (aka ttwawtsbui2hiohwhas) > Sword & Shield, so long as the Sword & Shield aren't free to move around as they please (so basically PF2 combat ruins this tactic).

[vagabond_666]

Duskreign wrote:

Well, that's the real trick. I think Jason plays it simpler for the stream but who knows. What I do know, is that I had a long conversation with Mark Seifter (one of the PF designers) about this and he stated this was how it worked. Although he did say that he wasn't authorized to make it official as Paizo wants to have a single source for definitive...

Given that following the Shield Block confusion in the playtest it was apparent that the different Devs had different ideas about how the shield block rules actually worked; until there is official clarification I'm not sure that any one Dev's statement is an indication of anything other than "this is how this Dev runs that rule in their game".

[Rysky]

vagabond_666 wrote:

Duskreign wrote:

Well, that's the real trick. I think Jason plays it simpler for the stream but who knows. What I do know, is that I had a long conversation with Mark Seifter (one of the PF designers) about this and he stated this was how it worked. Although he did say that he wasn't authorized to make it official as Paizo wants to have a single source for definitive...

Given that following the Shield Block confusion in the playtest it was apparent that the different Devs had different ideas about how the shield block rules actually worked; until there is official clarification I'm not sure that any one Dev's statement is an indication of anything other than "this is how this Dev runs that rule in their game".

I don't really recall much confusion.

[Temperans]

I mean with the first 2 minutes the guys says the spear and shield was the one of if not the most common tactic.

[Micheal Smith]

I have to agree the shield mechanic does feel rushed. Much better than the playtest. But I feel that 2E was rushed way to fast. So many issues with Society already, unacceptable. Another topic though.

I feel shields are very disappointing. And can maybe reliably take a couple of hits if that. Again I don't know the numbers yet. I just feel they could be better. I don't how but I feel right now they are lack luster.

[Perpdepog]

Temperans wrote:

Also may I ask why they made Orichalcum considerably better than both Adamantine and Living Steel? It has higher defenses than both (except unbreakable, but that's a magic shield) and can fully repair itself in 24hr (Living Steel had a rate of 2hp/day while not broken).

I mean Orichalcum has become the end game material: You can get boosts to initiative, more weapon properties, 1/day unbreakable shield, and all of them fully repair in 1 day.

I think it is mostly because orichalcum is the endgame material now. It's gated by being really high level, so it needs a higher hardness and hit points to demonstrate that atop the bonuses it gets--holding four runes, bonus to initiative, etc. It's really as simple as that.

The thing about this that bugs me is that it so thoroughly trashes adamantine at the thing it is supposed to do, i.e, be really durable. It's even more glaring when you recall that orichalcum, while still being far and beyond one of the most expensive materials in PF1E, was as durable as mithril.

[Temperans]

Perpdepog wrote:

I think it is mostly because orichalcum is the endgame material now. It's gated by being really high level, so it needs a higher hardness and hit points to demonstrate that atop the bonuses it gets--holding four runes, bonus to initiative, etc. It's really as simple as that.

The thing about this that bugs me is that it so thoroughly trashes adamantine at the thing it is supposed to do, i.e, be really durable. It's even more glaring when you recall that orichalcum, while still being far and beyond one of the most expensive materials in PF1E, was as durable as mithril.

The only benefits it had were a +1 circumstance bonus to non-projectile weapons and an untyped bonus to initiative depending on armor type. It was described in comparison to steel and being extremely rare (which explains the large costs compared to other things).

[Perpdepog]

Temperans wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

I think it is mostly because orichalcum is the endgame material now. It's gated by being really high level, so it needs a higher hardness and hit points to demonstrate that atop the bonuses it gets--holding four runes, bonus to initiative, etc. It's really as simple as that.

The thing about this that bugs me is that it so thoroughly trashes adamantine at the thing it is supposed to do, i.e, be really durable. It's even more glaring when you recall that orichalcum, while still being far and beyond one of the most expensive materials in PF1E, was as durable as mithril.

The only benefits it had were a +1 circumstance bonus to non-projectile weapons and an untyped bonus to initiative depending on armor type. It was described in comparison to steel and being extremely rare (which explains the large costs compared to other things).

The expense was mostly for the boost to initiative, which can be pretty powerful. And while it does say it's about as durable as steel, it is actually the same as mithril. Steel gets a hardness of 10, while mithril/horc get 15.

Steel hardness is kind of hidden away in the Damage Objects section.

[Megistone]

vagabond_666 wrote:

Fumarole wrote:

Temperans wrote:

It's kind of weird that the one item which has traditionally been always better for defense (both irl and in PF) has so few ways to scale for better defense (not talking proficiency).

Is it though?

I'm pretty sure that what that video demonstrates is that One on One:

Reach > Sword & Shield > Sword & No Shield > Trying to wield a weapon that should be used in 2 hands in one hand while holding a shield.
And that bucklers suck.

And also that in mass combat:
Spear & Shield (aka ttwawtsbui2hiohwhas) > Sword & Shield, so long as the Sword & Shield aren't free to move around as they please (so basically PF2 combat ruins this tactic).

And this is actually what ancient history (at least in Europe) tells us: the Roman legions (shortsword and large shield) dominated everything else when they could make use of mobility.

Also, a spear is no good against ranged attacks while a shield is a lifesaver.

[vagabond_666]

Rysky wrote:

I don't really recall much confusion.

Feel free to search either the playtest forums or the Pathfinder_RPG subreddit for anything to do with how shields and dents work, you're looking for posts from the point of the playtest rules release until around the release of the 1.1 errata.

[Captain Morgan]

Duskreign wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Duskreign wrote:

One other effect I think shields has had on the game is that in order to make the shield math generally work, its pigeon holed the math of creatures to be pretty same-y on the same levels. There are some outliers though.

I don't think that has much to do with shields. Creatures of similar levels need to have similar stats to make encounter building guidelines worth a damn.

One dial can be turned up while another is turned down. More damage could mean less HPs or lower AC. There are ways to still balance the encounter. I think the game would be better for it with more of these adjustments. I just think Shields is one of the things that is thus far limiting these changes.

More damage but less durability is just going to result in rocket tag, and avoiding that was a stated design goal. Cranking it up the other way results in battles that drag on too long.