Why are shield options so restrictive compared to weapons and armor?


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the shield rules, I love the way that shields have been approached, and I think actually getting to use a shield instead of just setting and forgetting it as a passive stat is a grand step forward. However, the magic shields that have been made available seem to go against the design philosophy of other magic items in the book. Most characters who intend to use a shield will, at some point, want to use it to shield block. In this instance, only the sturdy shield appears to be a viable option at higher levels, because every other "specific magic shield" will be destroyed in a single attack at high levels. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate design choice to keep shield blockers from having cool effects attached to their shields, but it seems to go against the way that weapons and armor were designed, to the degree that I actually created my own shield runes to provide my players with actual options at high levels and let them have cool things.

Does anyone have a solid explanation as to why shields were designed in this way? Surely the characters who specialize the most heavily in shields can't be intended to never use anything other than sturdy shields past level 8. In a perfect world I would love to see my shield rules included as an errata, but I realize they're little more than homebrew at this point.

To clarify, I didn't make this thread to discuss the merits or balance of the homebrewed shield rules I presented, but to discuss the existing state of magic shields and whether they're actually healthy for the game.


Guess it's because sturdy shields are meant to block an attack, while the others are not.

Maybe we will be able to get a base in terms of special materials, for magic ones. But the sturdy shields will probably remain the best for a tank.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It could be that this is just the first options for shields that the developers have presented and there are better options in the pipeline coming soon. They may have wanted to vet the system with weaker options and see how powerful that is instead of risking putting in an overpowered, must-have, option that all characters would need to have.

But to analyze the current options, I have to assume that what we have is the best that we are going to get.

At low levels, the basic equipment shields work well enough. But at high level, using them for shield block is ineffective. The incoming damage blows through the shield's hardness like it wasn't even there.

For the other shields, I would agree that the Sturdy Shield is the one designed for doing shield block with. That is its purpose. But it doesn't have any other abilities.

The other specialty shields have cool effects, but if you are using them for shield block, then it is probably best to think of them as on par with consumable items like talismans.

I'm thinking that this is not a bad state to be in. If the specialty shields with abilities were more durable when used for shield block, it would likely end up in the must-have category - all it requires is getting the shield block action from some build option. Why take a monk stance that gives defensive benefits similar to a shield when you can pick up a shield and get those defensive benefits as well as cool effects? Why use the shield cantrip when you can use a shield and also have cool effects? Why make the decision between keeping your cool effects from your shield or using the shield to block and having it destroyed?


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I disagree that this is necessarily intentional or good.

Shields are in a weird place because unlike weapons and armor, they're leveled items rather than things you upgrade. More like Starfinder than Pathfinder. Except none of the magic shields have leveled stats on them. They're all essentially basic shields. It feels like Paizo wasn't entirely on page about whether or not shields should be leveled items or have stats that can be upgraded like weapons and armor and we end up in this weird place where only a couple shields have stats at all appropriate for their level.

Moreover, it's not just the magic shields. The special material shields, while they do scale, all have abysmal stats compared to the Sturdy shield. Even the uncommon/rare and supposedly supernaturally tough Adamantine and Orichalcum are significantly worse at blocking too.

Finally, if there was a specific delineation between shields that are designed for blocking and shields that have other magic effects that'd be fine, but the magic shields that have effects that trigger on block have the same stats as the magic shields that don't.

breithauptclan wrote:

The other specialty shields have cool effects, but if you are using them for shield block, then it is probably best to think of them as on par with consumable items like talismans.

The Forge Shield is a level 10 item that does 2d6 fire damage as a free action when you use it to block.

Does a 975 GP consumable that does 7 damage honestly sound like a good deal to you?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In any case of evaluating the "worth it" value of shields, it is important to remind everyone that by RAW the choice to use shield block comes after damage has been rolled.

That might not sound like much, but it means it is always the player's choice to grab those few extra HP at the cost of their shield or not.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.

But that doesn't matter if you never want to do it. Then it's just another consumable that never gets used.


Correct. Just like a potion of fly might be used to wonderful effect in one campaign and left unused in another because of the particulars that make up challenges within that campaign, so too might a particular shield not be used for blocking in one campaign but be used for shield block and repaired numerous times in another.


thenobledrake wrote:

In any case of evaluating the "worth it" value of shields, it is important to remind everyone that by RAW the choice to use shield block comes after damage has been rolled.

That might not sound like much, but it means it is always the player's choice to grab those few extra HP at the cost of their shield or not.

Oh, that's great.

I was a little disappointing about having to blindly choose between using a block or orc ferocity.

Do you remember the Page?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Correct. Just like a potion of fly might be used to wonderful effect in one campaign and left unused in another because of the particulars that make up challenges within that campaign, so too might a particular shield not be used for blocking in one campaign but be used for shield block and repaired numerous times in another.

Shield blocking is either part of your character build, or it isn't. It's not subject to what terrain you're in, it's effective against all physical attacks, which are present in 99% of encounters, and it's relevant to every campaign I've ever heard of. What you're saying is tantamount to saying that the Strike action is a situational tool that might be left unused in a campaign. Sure, if you're a Wizard it might, but that's not because Strike is a situational tool, it's because your character was never built for it in the first place. For characters who ARE built for striking, it would be equally ridiculous if their 1,000gp magic swords disappeared whenever they hit something.

The fact that you're sitting here arguing that the Arrow-Catching Shield and Forge Warden are 1,000 gp consumable Talismans, and that that's correct and justified, just shows that you're here to troll us, and not take this thread seriously.


As crazy as is sounds, they MAY be intended as expendable items. I mean, they have rules for potentially destroying a wand by using it more than once per day and those can cost up to 70,000gp. If they actually expect someone would ever Overcharge a Wand and potentially blowing up 60-70,000gp, tossing away 1000gp doesn't seem too far-fetched. :P


Overcharging a wand should be seen as a last hope, which makes perfectly sense.

If you are not in a hurry, nor your life Depends on the spell provided by the wand, you shouldn't be overcharging it.

A shield shouldn't be probably destroyed if you have legendary craft and quick repair.

Eventually you could go with a second shield.

Or an indestructible one.

But if the fight last till 2 sturdy shields are broken, there is definitely something wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
As crazy as is sounds, they MAY be intended as expendable items. I mean, they have rules for potentially destroying a wand by using it more than once per day and those can cost up to 70,000gp. If they actually expect someone would ever Overcharge a Wand and potentially blowing up 60-70,000gp, tossing away 1000gp doesn't seem too far-fetched. :P

No it doesn't, because wands have a primary purpose that does not involve destroying them, and that primary purpose is well worth the cost. The Arrow-blocking shield, on the other hand, cannot perform its namesake without destroying itself.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Strill wrote:
The fact that you're sitting here arguing that the Arrow-Catching Shield and Forge Warden are 1,000 gp consumable Talismans, and that that's correct and justified, just shows that you're here to troll us, and not take this thread seriously.

Where did thenobledrake state this?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

To be clear, at higher level lots of average hits will outright permanently destroy a shield. However, less than average hits, which you will know the total of, will often simply break the shield.

In those cases you're trading the +2 shield ac bonus with the raise the shield action for the rest of the fight for a frankly pitiful amount of DR against one attack. Better than the full cost of the shield, but still only useful in rare circumstances.

I certainly wouldn't bother thinking about shield blocking after a while if I wasn't using a sturdy shield, and I think that's a problem.

What gets me is the whole "Ah this attack will definitely knock me out of the fight, but my shield may get destroyed if I block and they can heal me back up later... eh, better just eat the damage."

For me, a simple rule where a shield cannot be destroyed from full HP in a single hit helps A LOT.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

To be clear, at higher level lots of average hits will outright permanently destroy a shield. However, less than average hits, which you will know the total of, will often simply break the shield.

In those cases you're trading the +2 shield ac bonus with the raise the shield action for the rest of the fight for a frankly pitiful amount of DR against one attack. Better than the full cost of the shield, but still only useful in rare circumstances.

I certainly wouldn't bother thinking about shield blocking after a while if I wasn't using a sturdy shield, and I think that's a problem.

What gets me is the whole "Ah this attack will definitely knock me out of the fight, but my shield may get destroyed if I block and they can heal me back up later... eh, better just eat the damage."

For me, a simple rule where a shield cannot be destroyed from full HP in a single hit helps A LOT.

Or just changing 'sturdy' to a rune you can apply to any shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zman0 wrote:
There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.

Yup. An adamantine Forge Warden becomes a lot better.


https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=322

Here's a shield which trades hp for infinite durability.

However, if you want to invest in shield block, consider to multiclass champion in order to get the divine ally.

The problem is that currently there's not neutral or evil variant.

And renouncing to 2 hardness and 50% extra HP would be not the best for a shield user.


Strill wrote:
... it's relevant to every campaign I've ever heard of.

What you have missed is that a campaign can use enemies with heavy-hitting strikes that will destroy your shield if you block them, or it can use enemies with lighter-hitting strikes that your shield will only break if you block.

Strill wrote:
... shows that you're here to troll us, and not take this thread seriously.

I believe that it's against the rules around here to call someone a troll, and even if that isn't the case resorting to this kind of name-calling undercuts the points you are trying to make. More so even than the straw man you've built by putting words in my mouth does.


K1 wrote:
thenobledrake wrote:

In any case of evaluating the "worth it" value of shields, it is important to remind everyone that by RAW the choice to use shield block comes after damage has been rolled.

That might not sound like much, but it means it is always the player's choice to grab those few extra HP at the cost of their shield or not.

Oh, that's great.

I was a little disappointing about having to blindly choose between using a block or orc ferocity.

Do you remember the Page?

Shield block (p. 266) trigger + the steps for damage (p. 450).


I'm in love with shields for the sole reason that it let me fulfill my fantasy of an Ulfen berserker who wields an axe and shield both as weapons at level 2 and that's easily enough for me to love shields in 2E alone.

To the OP, I think the rules are fine and we'll probably get more support coming, but it works well enough for the CRB.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I think the core problem here is that shields do not upgrade how armor or weapons upgrade. It's needlessly confusing, implies you should be buying a new shield constantly, and leads to this nonsense where a shield whose special power is to catch arrows will actually break if it's ever used to catch an arrow.

I'm thinking the whole thing needs a rewrite to bring it in line with weapons and armor. Even if it was balanced, the whole thing is inconsistent and confusing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

A few things, since they separated Shields, Shield Bosses, and Shield Spikes, there should/could be options for having magic shield bosses that are attached to normal, or sturdy shields.

Based on the fundamental changes to magic, with the introduction of Runes, I have trouble understanding why they didn't make Sturdy into a rune applied to a shield or shield boss, or even offer a shield frame or straps. Allowing a shield to be destroyed without inherently destroying the runes.

I like the idea of special magic shields, just like I like the idea of the occasional specialized magic weapon that isn't made of modules of weapon + fundamental rune + property rune or two. But why did shields get written in such a way they all seem arbitrary.

I understand that some might read the rules and feel like they could take a special shield and replace the material, and replace the hardness HP, and BT of the shield based on that, but it is certainly making the assumption (which is fine for any GM to make in a home game).

But what if Sturdy were made a rune with qualities:
As per below for all but bucklers (bucklers get 1/2 the bonus to hardness, but same max)
minor, L4 (+2 hardness, max 8)
lesser, L7 (+4 hardness, max 10)
moderate, L10 (+7 hardness, max 13)
greater, L13 (+9 hardness, max 15)
major, L16 (+11 hardness, max 17)
supreme, L19 (+14 hardness, max 20)
All levels: Broken Threshold gets reset to 4x hardness, Hit Points gets reset to 8x hardness.

Then you can say a Lions' shield for instance has a property which sets its BT = 3x hardness and HP = 6x hardness. If you have both aspects, they don't stack, you just get the better of the two. Actually for instance, the Lions's shield should be a magic shield boss, not a magic shield, although it apparently impacts the shield it is attached to.

Dark Archive

I think shields are built the way they are and considered equipment outside of weapons and armor is due to balancing factor. Giving shields the ability to be upgraded with runes and have a bunch more fancy tricks would just make sword and board superior to other options. From an analysis I read soon after 2e was launched, a sword and board fighter wins most fights against a two-handed weapon fighter because of his defensive capability. I think adding more to shields would just make shield users the supreme choice for all characters.


Pretty sure if Shields were meant to be viewed as expendable items they’d have the consumable tag. I do believe they’re meant to be viewed as potentially expendable though.

It was brought up in another thread that when crafting with Precious Materials a reasonable assumption would be to combine the stats of the Shield and the PM. It ends up making other Shields much more comparable; and when compared to a Sturdy Shield of the same level it ends up matching up well with the Sturdy Shield still being a reasonable alternative.

Sturdy Steel Shield Lv 4
Hardness - 8
HP - 64
Cost - 100gp

Cold Iron Steel Shield Lv 2
Hardness - 10
HP - 40
Cost - 36gp


Narxiso wrote:
From an analysis I read soon after 2e was launched, a sword and board fighter wins most fights against a two-handed weapon fighter because of his defensive capability.

I mean, both in history and fiction the way a sole combatant with a two handed weapon would defeat a shield using warrior is by destroying the shield so as to remove its protective capability. So "most shields are relatively simple for fearsome opponents to break" is appropriate.

I think the big problem is the psychological hurdle of "I don't want to lose this item I paid a lot of GP for". Which probably needs we need something to let people salvage their shattered shields so you're not constantly going through Forge Wardens.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For most of the playtest, it was impossible for a shield to be destroyed in a single blow. I think the main problem with shields in the current rules is that this insurance has been lost.

I doubt that too many people would complain if the first hit could break but not destroy a shield. Then, the standard strategy for a sword and board type would be to raise shield each turn and do shield blocks until the shield is broken, then raise shield only but not use Shield Block until the next short rest when the shield can be repaired.

Alternatively, the trigger for Shield Block could be rephrased so that you roll the damage before deciding whether to use that reaction.


Would "your shield can only take enough damage to be broken in a single hit, rather than destroyed" be worth a feat, like a general feat which has shield block as a prerequisite?


David knott 242 wrote:

For most of the playtest, it was impossible for a shield to be destroyed in a single blow. I think the main problem with shields in the current rules is that this insurance has been lost.

I doubt that too many people would complain if the first hit could break but not destroy a shield. Then, the standard strategy for a sword and board type would be to raise shield each turn and do shield blocks until the shield is broken, then raise shield only but not use Shield Block until the next short rest when the shield can be repaired.

Alternatively, the trigger for Shield Block could be rephrased so that you roll the damage before deciding whether to use that reaction.

I think you do get to know the damage before you use the reaction.


I agree part of the hang up is the idea that it's better to take damage then to use a shield to block. Which let's be honest, the entire point of a shield is to be able to block and divert attack; the shield bonus handles the divert great, but the shield block stops working at high level.

I also agree they probably did it for balance reasons. But, it's certainly questionable how good it is and whether other solutions are available (people have said to make sturdy into a rune, which makes a lot of sense).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:


I also agree they probably did it for balance reasons.

Did they? I mean...

The shields page has stats for adamantine, cold iron, mithral, darkwood and silver shields.

And none of those are relevant because the sturdy shield on the next page completely outclasses all of them as shields. Even Orichalcum is a bit of a trap because while they have break protection, they also have less than half the durability of a sturdy shield of the same level.

Darkwood has the advantage of being the only special material you can build tower shields out of, I suppose, and you'd want an adamantine or orichalcum buckler, but the rest?

And while it may make sense for shields with special effects to be bad at blocking, to reiterate, it's kind of weird that shields that have specific effects that trigger on block are also so fragile.

Coming off that, it also gives those shields a really narrow lifespan. The arrow-catching shield can have some use when you first pick it up, especially against lower level enemies, but it's going to get rapidly worse as you level up and there's no way to upgrade it or buy a higher leveled version either.

It feels more like this section wasn't reviewed thoroughly.


thenobledrake wrote:
Strill wrote:
... it's relevant to every campaign I've ever heard of.
What you have missed is that a campaign can use enemies with heavy-hitting strikes that will destroy your shield if you block them, or it can use enemies with lighter-hitting strikes that your shield will only break if you block.

Maybe you're looking at a different book than me, but the stats on the magic shields in my book don't scale with their item level. It's not a matter of the shields being a few levels behind in durability, where the variance you're talking about would make sense, it's that they don't scale AT ALL. So unless you're suggesting the DM send level 1 enemies against the players for the whole campaign, I don't see how what you said could possibly make sense. Eventually, ALL the enemies you face will destroy your shield in one hit, unless it's a sturdy/indestructible shield.


Ofc you can make shields of different materials, but it is useless.

Knowing this, you will simply avoid doing a shield of a specific material.

That said, decide if you want a tank shield or a situational shield.

Being able to gain 2 armor and 2 against spells which target you is not bad.

Eventually, if needed, you could block and nearly destroy your shield, to save your life.

But if your main purpose is to use your reaction to absorb dmg ( p2 is ''world of shields'' since every class will go with em for armor and block, which is too good ).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Would "your shield can only take enough damage to be broken in a single hit, rather than destroyed" be worth a feat, like a general feat which has shield block as a prerequisite?

No. Because this is straight up a feat tax. It's basically reading: "Should I be paying a feat for doing something that should already be working?"

I was afraid shield rules would turn out funky even since I realized how the numbers were working in the playtest. It was a whole thing regarding if the shield was only taking the reduced damage rather than reducing the damage and also taking the rest. Some people claimed it was just the reduced damage, which was why the numbers were fine...

Turns out I was right the whole time. The shields were supposed to be taking full damage and needed to have numbers to support it. Sadly, they didn't do a thing to remedy that, neither altering shield numbers nor choosing the easiest route of assuming the shields only took the damage they reduced. It was the least realistic approach? Yes. But it was the easiest to use, since you could simple multiply the toughness (DR) by X and come up with the amount of hits you wanted the shield to withstand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Squiggit

I'm not saying it was done correctly, but I cant deny they did a lot of weird things with the math and actions to balance thing.

***************
*Side note
I Personally believe all shield should be able to block at least 1 average hit of the appropriate level.
If a regular shield can block a level appropriate attack once without breaking, a sturdy shield of equal level should be able to block at least twice without breaking.


Strill wrote:
Maybe you're looking at a different book than me, but the stats on the magic shields in my book don't scale with their item level.

This statement confuses me, as all the shields in the book which have more than one level of item they exist as have improved stats at higher levels.

Are you referring to the examples of magical shields which have other magical traits? If so, you're talking about something that is roughly equivalent to the statement "the stats on antimagic armor in my book don't scale with their item level." Because in both cases the stats you are talking about are scaled via another source (potency runes for armor, and special materials for shields).

Strill wrote:
So unless you're suggesting the DM send level 1 enemies against the players for the whole campaign...

Back away from the extremes, they don't help anybody.

I was talking about the difference in damage output potential when comparing one campaign that trends toward lower-damage enemies (such as via trending toward low-difficulty encounters) where even a "fragile" shield can find opportunities to block attacks without being destroyed, and another campaign that trends towards higher-damage enemies (such as via trending toward high-difficulty encounters) where even the sturdiest of shield is likely to be pushed to its limits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zman0 wrote:
There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.

I'm gonna requote this because it is important and seems to be overlooked. A sturdy shield might be better than an adamantine shield or a Forge Warden, but it is not especially better than an adamantine Forge Warden.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I’m coming at it from a different perspective. My thirty year old SCA shield is in perfect order, but I’ve had to repair my helm and armor many times. Just saying.

Scarab Sages

Captain Morgan wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.
I'm gonna requote this because it is important and seems to be overlooked. A sturdy shield might be better than an adamantine shield or a Forge Warden, but it is not especially better than an adamantine Forge Warden.

I could use a link, I have no idea how to figure those stats and it really changes the Shield game, at least until mid levels of play.


Fumarole wrote:
Strill wrote:
The fact that you're sitting here arguing that the Arrow-Catching Shield and Forge Warden are 1,000 gp consumable Talismans, and that that's correct and justified, just shows that you're here to troll us, and not take this thread seriously.
Where did thenobledrake state this?

Yeah. Point the flame over here. I was the one who initially proposed that.

And no, that wasn't a troll post.

In D&D 3.5 and PF1, shields only had one purpose: increasing AC.

In PF2, they still have that purpose. Wouldn't that still be their primary purpose? The increase to AC.

Is it completely unreasonable to think of the shield block reaction is a last-ditch option done out of desperation - much like overcharging a wand.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Is it completely unreasonable to think of the shield block reaction is a last-ditch option done out of desperation - much like overcharging a wand.

The arrow catching shield is priced as a permanent magic item for its level, 675 times more expensive than a steel shield which has similar stats (arrow catching has 1 extra hardness and 4 extra HP), 13.5 times more expensive than the least expensive sturdy shield (which has more hardness and HP than the arrow catcher) and about 5 times more expensive than a same level consumable.

Its only unique magical effect is a special version of the shield block reaction.

So, yeah, it does seem a little bit unreasonable, given the level and price of the item and specifically what it does, that it's intended to be a consumable. Or that, regardless of intent, that it's necessarily good for it to be in that spot given its current price point.

The problem is that even if we take your assertion that Raising is a shield's only real purpose, you're getting the same raise value out of a 1 GP wooden shield as you are out of the much more expensive magical or special material shields. That's where the wand analogy falls apart.

For shields, all of that extra value has to be weighted against everything else it does. You're not buying an arrow catching shield or an adamantine shield so you can raise it whenever you have an extra action and otherwise ignore it.


Might as well by a ton of cheap shields just for the AC plus the expendable extra DR. Why even bother with fancy paper shields when you can get simple paper shields late game that you can buy by the dozen.


Angel Hunter D wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
There was another long thread on this and my best answer to it is that they expect you to craft the special shields out of different materials. The rules seem to support it RAW and RAI, though it isn't laid out terribly intuitively.
I'm gonna requote this because it is important and seems to be overlooked. A sturdy shield might be better than an adamantine shield or a Forge Warden, but it is not especially better than an adamantine Forge Warden.
I could use a link, I have no idea how to figure those stats and it really changes the Shield game, at least until mid levels of play.

Pg 244, 263, 577-578, 586-587

As long as you have the Magical Crafting Feat and raw materials you can substitute out the basic steel shield from the magical shields etc with the base statistics for the precious material shield you crafted and used to make the magical item.

Meet requirements of all parts, add cost of precious material shield to cost of magic shield, then craft it. All shields late game will be made into Spellguard Shields or Spined Shields if they aren't Indestructible or Sturdy.

This does not tell us what happens when you try and craft a Sturdy Shield out of a Precious Material. Best interpretation is that Sturdy doesn't care about the material so make it out of the cheapest garbage available.


Tarondor wrote:
I’m coming at it from a different perspective. My thirty year old SCA shield is in perfect order, but I’ve had to repair my helm and armor many times. Just saying.

Yeah, shields are very durable in real life, you can't just smack them once or twice and make them unusable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, and purely anecdotally. All the historical testing I’ve ever seen about shields implies the man on the other side of the shield gives out long before the shield itself gives way.

I’m wondering why they didn’t go with shield runes similar to weapon runes. You could have just baked hardness and durability increases into those.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if shields breaking is quite that unrealistic - holmgang apparently involved a specific number of replacement shields per participant in the duel.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

And in real life we aren't taking blows from trolls.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
And in real life we aren't taking blows from trolls.

This IS the internet and there are lots of trolls around... :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay pls explain, if magic shield stats dont improve because "we on earth dont face monstrous creatures", why do magic weapon and armor stats improve to combat magic creatures? It feels odd that everything else gets better, but this one thing somehow stays the same.

I'm just confused and dont get the logic behind that comment.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Oh I think they should improve. Just that someone's shield being fine in the real world isn't indicative of how they'd hold up against things whose capacity far outstrips normal humans.

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Why are shield options so restrictive compared to weapons and armor? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.