So I'm still reading the rules and a friend offered to GM a society scenario, it had one encounter, and I raise my shield and block with it, it got immediately broken and the question arose, can I raise it an keep the AC and block again and risk getting it destroyed or not? he rules that I could because it was armor, now I see that shields have their own section in equipment, in the broken rules it says that armor continuous to give AC but I think shields are not armor, what do you think?
And is it worth it? having a shield I mean, I could be using a 2h weapon and dealing more damage instead of having a 5DR for one round, maybe I'm missing something? probably.
Thanks.
It depends on what you want to do.
The AC boost far outweighs the actual shield block in my opinion, though the shield block can be good in emergencies. You're not supposed to be actively blocking every attack.
In the rules, it says that if it's broken it's unusable.
"This column lists the shield’s Hit Points (HP) and Broken Threshold (BT). These measure how much damage the shield can take before it’s destroyed (its total HP) and how much it can take before being broken and unusable (its BT). These matter primarily for the Shield Block reaction."
Source Core Rulebook pg. 277
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, you won't benefit from a broken shield.
Yes, shields can be totally worthwhile.
Additionally, you should know the incoming damage and whether it would break your shield BEFORE you choose whether to block.
To reinforce ExOichoThrow's point, the broken condition does prevent an item from being used for it's intended purpose.
Broken is a condition that affects objects. An object is
broken when damage has reduced its Hit Points below
its Broken Threshold. A broken object can’t be used for
its normal function, nor does it grant bonuses—with the
exception of armor. Broken armor still grants its item bonus
to AC, but it also imparts a status penalty to AC depending
on its category: –1 for broken light armor, –2 for broken
medium armor, or –3 for broken heavy armor.
A broken item still imposes penalties and limitations
normally incurred by carrying, holding, or wearing it.
For example, broken armor would still impose its Dexterity
modifier cap, check penalty, and so forth.
If an effect makes an item broken automatically and the
item has more HP than its Broken Threshold, that effect
also reduces the item’s current HP to the Broken Threshold.
While RAW you could not raise a broken shield, I would probably allow it as a house rule. You would not gain the shields AC bonus but could use it to Shield Block as a last resort. Again that is a house ruling of mine and not what I believe the rules specifically allow for. But I like the idea of a fighter using a broken shield in a last ditch defense. One that is likely to result in a destroyed shield granted, but could save his life in a dire situation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you won't benefit from a broken shield.
Yes, shields can be totally worthwhile.
Additionally, you should know the incoming damage and whether it would break your shield BEFORE you choose whether to block.
Why would you expect a PC to know what the damage is before deciding to use shield block?
If I know a player has a shield raised (and am actually on top of my game and remembering things) I tell them they will be hit and will take damage and ask if they want to use their reaction to reduce it before announcing the damage amount.
Retroactively allowing them to shield block after the damage amount is known does not make as much sense to me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you won't benefit from a broken shield.
Yes, shields can be totally worthwhile.
Additionally, you should know the incoming damage and whether it would break your shield BEFORE you choose whether to block.
Why would you expect a PC to know what the damage is and whether they want to use the shield block reaction ahead of time?
If I know a player has a shield raised (and am actually on top of my game and remembering things) I tell them they will be hit and will take damage and ask if they want to use their reaction to reduce it before announcing the damage amount.
Retroactively allowing them to shieldblock after the damage is known does not make as much sense to me.
This was discussed in this subforum:
Shield Block discussion
Yes, I said that because it's the answer I saw Mark Seifter give before. I don't have a link on hand without more digging, though.
Edit: on reflection, I am trying to remember if there was a forum post on it, or if I'm just remembering an answer he gave on his Arcane Mark discord (since I do see it in the chatop log there), which should not be treated as an official source.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the link to the discussion:
Seminar discussion
Here is Mark's post:
The last iteration of the Shield rules (where shields could take 2 dents, but blocking only gave 1 at most) meant it was impossible for a fresh shield to break in one block. Is that still true in the final rules?
As you can see throughout the process when we kept answering the question multiple different ways on the streams, that last playtest iteration was mostly a patch on an issue involved with calculating the dents and HP. Using HP, it is possible for your shield to break, or even be totally destroyed, in one hit, but you get to know how much damage is incoming before you decide whether to block, so that only happens if you choose. Looking at how much it would take to destroy Linda's dwarf's shield in one hit, though, even on a crit that's not going to happen unless they're fighting something way beyond their level. Even a balor would be hard-pressed to do that much in a single crit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything more recent? Not that I disagree, that's definitely what Mr. Seifter said and I've been playing it that way in my games, but that was back in March and might have changed without much more dev comment.
The trigger "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack" is fairly ambiguous.
|
|
Ok, I am looking through Mark's posts here is the link to all of them:
Mark's Posts
You can use the link below to see all his posts that contain the word shield ordered by Newest First:
Mark's Posts w/ Shield word - Newest First
I went through them until the beginning of August and I did not see anything that would change his original post entry. You can keep digging if you want - you might find something.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I'm parroting what was taught to me months ago.)
If you follow the order of events outlined in the Core Rulebook for determining attacks and damage, it becomes obvious that you're supposed to know the damage before declaring shield block.
It's under the Damage header on page 450.
Shield block has the trigger "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack." That means steps 1-3 have already occurred and the damage is known.
Developers have backed this up in a number of places.
Seems pretty clear now!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that 1-3 are done first....by the DM. In step 4 the information is given to the player. It would seem the shield block occurs before that damage info is given to the player in step 4 right?
Nope. I would imagine that most damage rolls at most tables go something like this:
GM: *Rolls dice. "Hey Ted, you're taking 12 damage from the Orc's Sword. Do you have any resistance to Slashing?"
Ted: "No I don't, but I would like to use Shield Block."
GM: "Dope. What is your shields hardness?"
Go ahead and fill in the rest.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>
I'm bringin it back man.
|
I'm bringin it back man.But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>
You two are funny..lol
back to the OP's question:
Keep in mind that there are shields and then there are SHIELDS!
Imagine, if you would, being strapped to the Supreme Sturdy Shield (Hardness: 20, HP: 160, BT: 80) [CRB pg. 588]
Also imagine, the possibility of creating a Supremely Indestructible Sturdy Shield at a later date in this game. This assumes more instances of adding two different magic items together (Indestructible Shield & Sturdy Shield) are allowed/house ruled.
NiftyB
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I'm seeing in actual gameplay, shields are really popular for the AC and rarely used for blocking damage. Mainly, because a lot of characters are picking up shields who don't even have the Shield Block ability.
The most peculiar may be monks, because shield-bearing monks have never really been a thing before. But they work pretty well.
With the way the math stacks up in PFS scenarios, I'm starting to hear a lot of "well your monster hit me but didn't crit me because I had my shield raised". 2 AC is a lot in this game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I'm seeing in actual gameplay, shields are really popular for the AC and rarely used for blocking damage. Mainly, because a lot of characters are picking up shields who don't even have the Shield Block ability.
The most peculiar may be monks, because shield-bearing monks have never really been a thing before. But they work pretty well.
With the way the math stacks up in PFS scenarios, I'm starting to hear a lot of "well your monster hit me but didn't crit me because I had my shield raised". 2 AC is a lot in this game.
I can certainly see this, but definitely put me in the category of "uses shield to block".
My fighter [Tank] feels that it is worth 5 extra hp every time he is hit and his shield is not broken. I've considered carrying an extra steel shield for this very purpose.
NiftyB
But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>
Because he didn't have resistance to slashing.
|
From what I'm seeing in actual gameplay, shields are really popular for the AC and rarely used for blocking damage. Mainly, because a lot of characters are picking up shields who don't even have the Shield Block ability.
The most peculiar may be monks, because shield-bearing monks have never really been a thing before. But they work pretty well.
With the way the math stacks up in PFS scenarios, I'm starting to hear a lot of "well your monster hit me but didn't crit me because I had my shield raised". 2 AC is a lot in this game.
As a Champion with a shield ally and a sturdy shield who just avoided nearly 70 damage (thanks to Hardness 10) last night in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings while protecting several spellcasters, I would like to slightly break with this opinion. :P
As a Champion with a shield ally and a sturdy shield who just avoided nearly 70 damage (thanks to Hardness 10) last night in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings while protecting several spellcasters, I would like to slightly break with this opinion. :P
You GM is attacking players that have their shields up and the shield block feat?! What a weak meta play... ;) ;) ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In soviet Russia, shields block blows with you.
|
|
In addition, anyone using a Shield would be well advised to apply for Pathfinder membership, and then purchase an unending stream of Fortifying Pebbles (LOCG page 110).
+10 hp to your shield block is a significant upgrade, and could singlehandedly change the cost-benefit analysis of many of the CRB's non-sturdy shields.
Oil of mending is 9 gp for the same benefit - albeit takes more effort.
There is a reason that a lot of shield bearers also take crafting as a skill. There will be some edge cases where the Fortifying Pebble is best - and for that price it is a good insurance for an expensive shield to keep from the broken condition.
But cost efficient it isn't. Haven't looked what the cost is to rather take the damage and to heal instead.
|
(I'm parroting what was taught to me months ago.)
If you follow the order of events outlined in the Core Rulebook for determining attacks and damage, it becomes obvious that you're supposed to know the damage before declaring shield block.
It's under the Damage header on page 450.
Shield block has the trigger "While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack." That means steps 1-3 have already occurred and the damage is known.
Developers have backed this up in a number of places.
What happens in the case of a character with both Shield Block AND Resistance to damage? Would you apply the resistance before the shield, or after?
The above explanation would seem to imply that Resistance is applied first. But that seems backwards-- an incoming blow being blocked by a shield should logically impact the shield first, then the wielder second. Applying Resistance first would effectively allow a character's innate Resistances to protect their shield as well as their actual body, which feels wrong to me.
I would argue that any potential Shield Block should happen immediately after step 2, not step 3. For example:
GM: "The Gnoll swings his scimitar at you. Does a 21 hit?"
Player: "Yep"
GM: [rolls damage] "He deals 10 slashing damage."
Player: "I block with my shield! It has a hardness of 6."
GM: "Ok, both you and the shield take the remaining 4 damage."
Player: "Ha, but I have Slashing resistance 5, so I take zero damage! My shield takes 4, but that't no enough to break it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens in the case of a character with both Shield Block AND Resistance to damage? Would you apply the resistance before the shield, or after?
The above explanation would seem to imply that Resistance is applied first. But that seems backwards-- an incoming blow being blocked by a shield should logically impact the shield first, then the wielder second. Applying Resistance first would effectively allow a character's innate Resistances to protect their shield as well as their actual body, which feels wrong to me.
I would argue that any potential Shield Block should happen immediately after step 2, not step 3. For example:
GM: "The Gnoll swings his scimitar at you. Does a 21 hit?"
Player: "Yep"
GM: [rolls damage] "He deals 10 slashing damage."
Player: "I block with my shield! It has a hardness of 6."
GM: "Ok, both you and the shield take the remaining 4 damage."
Player: "Ha, but I have Slashing resistance 5, so I take zero damage! My shield takes 4, but that't no enough to break it."
I used an example of a creature months ago (I might be the one who taught Ravingdork, but I also might not.)
Skeletal Champion has resistance 5 against piercing and slashing, as well as resistance 5 against several energy types. I'm going with fire to make to keep this simple. Next, I'm quoting all of Shield Block, and bolding for emphasis.
Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take
damage from a physical attack.
You snap your shield in place to ward off a blow. Your shield
prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to the
shield’s Hardness. You and the shield each take any remaining
damage, possibly breaking or destroying the shield.
Note that it isn't resistance. It says that it prevents you from taking damage equal to the shield's hardness. Minor but important distinction.
Now, since I'm trying to keep this simple, I have a wizard with a +1 flaming dagger attacks the skeletal champion. Said wizard has a Strength of 12. He hits, but doesn't crit. After rolling 1d4+1 + 1d6 fire, he rolls maximum damage and gets a whopping total of 5 physical damage and 6 fire damage. Steps 1 and 2 are complete, so we move on to step 3.
At this point we apply, in order, immunities, weaknesses, and resistances. None of the first two apply to the skeletal champion, so we apply resistance to piercing 5 (or slashing, as daggers can do both), as well as resistance to fire 5. The piercing damage is negated, and only 1 fire damage remains. We move to step 4.
1 fire damage remains. However, as page 452 states that physical damage is bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, the skeletal champion cannot use shield block. It takes 1 fire damage.
Amusingly, if the wizard somehow did 6 damage with the dagger (like from having a 14 Strength), it looks like the skeleton could Shield Block and negate all of the damage. An odd quirk, I'll freely admit. Not enough for me to read the rules differently, though.
Amusingly, if the wizard somehow did 6 damage with the dagger (like from having a 14 Strength), it looks like the skeleton could Shield Block and negate all of the damage. An odd quirk, I'll freely admit.
I am not sure if this is correct (however I am also not sure if my own interpretation is correct). We had exactly this issue while being attacked by a foe with an acidic bite: Does stopping the physical damage of an attack cancel out the energy damage of the attack? Surely not for restistances (unless you have resistance to all damage) so in the end our group agreed that a shield block that is successfully cancelling out all physical damage will not affect any (remaining) energy damage.
In the end this is more of an issue of the game mechanics colliding with your imagination, i.e. where and how the blocking took place. Why do I get energy damage if the critter did not even hit me? Why does a werewolf fighters shield break more easily when I attack him with a silver dagger when compared to the shield of a regular human fighter? etc.
I play shields as blocking as much damage as possible from the source as it can. I mean if shields couldn't block energy damage, what would be the point of a Dragon Hide shield?
I play shields as blocking as much damage as possible from the source as it can. I mean if shields couldn't block energy damage, what would be the point of a Dragon Hide shield?
Counter question? What would be the point of the level 8 "Emblazon Energy (shield)" cleric class feat if normal (aka non Dragon Hide shields) could already block energy damage?
Well, I think we need to differ in between pure energy damage originating from spells and effects (like dragon breath) and combined physical / energy damage from other attacks.
So in hindsight I think you are right to total the damage vs hardness in contrary what you would do versus individual resistances, which means that a normal shield can indeed help stop a combined attack.
However it still sounds strange that due to the way damage is handled in steps you could not block an attack that already had its physical part reduced to zero by resistance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play shields as blocking as much damage as possible from the source as it can. I mean if shields couldn't block energy damage, what would be the point of a Dragon Hide shield?Counter question? What would be the point of the level 8 "Emblazon Energy (shield)" cleric class feat if normal (aka non Dragon Hide shields) could already block energy damage?
Well, I think we need to differ in between pure energy damage originating from spells and effects (like dragon breath) and combined physical / energy damage from other attacks.
So in hindsight I think you are right to total the damage vs hardness in contrary what you would do versus individual resistances, which means that a normal shield can indeed help stop a combined attack.
However it still sounds strange that due to the way damage is handled in steps you could not block an attack that already had its physical part reduced to zero by resistance.
I would rule that any remaining damage from a physical attack is blocked normally. I mean even if the edge of the blade doesn't hurt you, it had to get the energy damage to you, right? Meaning that your shield could definitely get in the way.
Amusingly, if the wizard somehow did 6 damage with the dagger (like from having a 14 Strength), it looks like the skeleton could Shield Block and negate all of the damage. An odd quirk, I'll freely admit.I am not sure if this is correct (however I am also not sure if my own interpretation is correct). We had exactly this issue while being attacked by a foe with an acidic bite: Does stopping the physical damage of an attack cancel out the energy damage of the attack? Surely not for restistances (unless you have resistance to all damage) so in the end our group agreed that a shield block that is successfully cancelling out all physical damage will not affect any (remaining) energy damage.
In the end this is more of an issue of the game mechanics colliding with your imagination, i.e. where and how the blocking took place. Why do I get energy damage if the critter did not even hit me? Why does a werewolf fighters shield break more easily when I attack him with a silver dagger when compared to the shield of a regular human fighter? etc.
Oh, I don't disagree that it feels like the shield shouldn't block the energy damage in that instance. I'm just trying read the 'Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to the
shield’s Hardness.' line as literally as possible, here. The shield block can't trigger unless you'd take physical damage, but at that point it can block its hardness in damage.Personally, I have no problem with people house-ruling the order of operations differently so that it makes more sense to them, as long as they're aware it's a house-rule. I'd probably house-rule that the energy damage would get by the shield as well in my example.
Just to play devil's advocate:
You could equally easy argue that if the shield blocks all physical damage, none of the energy damage get through either. You can rule that a flaming sword has flames around the weapon that char the wound for extra damage - it isn't emitting a mini fire-ray or something, it has no "range".
So if the steel doesn't come into contact with the enemy, which "all damage is blocked" could be taken to suggest, there's no way to transmit the energy damage either.
Again, just sayin'...
You could argue that, yes. And I think the rules are pretty clear, if you block with the shield, none of the damage gets through (including energy).
I'm just saying that I think it's a reasonable house-rule to have the shield's hardness only apply to the physical damage of an attack. I've also flip-flopped on the idea a bit, and probably wouldn't house-rule it this week, as it could cause other issues I didn't see at the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a little confusing because object hardness, by my read, should apply to all damage. So a hardness 15 means your flaming weapon should do no fire damage no matter how much physical damage you do. But I'm not sure shield block works with normal hardness mechanics by RAW. Fire might bypass the shield and hit you, and I'm not sure if the shield also takes fire damage.
A raised shield saved our last character standing from dying yesterday. By extension, it saved the entire party. The reduced damage turned what would have been two rounds of combat into six, which gave him the time to land some hits of his own. I had been skeptical until now.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a little confusing because object hardness, by my read, should apply to all damage. So a hardness 15 means your flaming weapon should do no fire damage no matter how much physical damage you do. But I'm not sure shield block works with normal hardness mechanics by RAW. Fire might bypass the shield and hit you, and I'm not sure if the shield also takes fire damage.
https://youtu.be/oe0eJrrAlUE at 44:07.
It looks like Paizo has stated that in the case that an attack does multiple types of damage their intention was to leave it up to GM's discretion.
So if you've been houseruling odds are you are still doing things correctly.
Their words do seem to indicate that it can apply towards any type of damage which kinda leads me towards the viewpoint that it blocks the physical and then from it's remaining hardness or item hp (if any) it blocks the energy damage.
So 5 slashing and 5 fire damage against a 6 hardness shield would block 6 total damage and 4 remaining fire damage would go through.
Same for the question of in what order resistances would be applied. Totally up to the GM it seems. I would lean towards the option that had players not having to damage their shield in order to take advantage of their resistances but seems like even if you do it the other way neither is wrong.
It's a little confusing because object hardness, by my read, should apply to all damage. So a hardness 15 means your flaming weapon should do no fire damage no matter how much physical damage you do. But I'm not sure shield block works with normal hardness mechanics by RAW. Fire might bypass the shield and hit you, and I'm not sure if the shield also takes fire damage.https://youtu.be/oe0eJrrAlUE at 44:07.
It looks like Paizo has stated that in the case that an attack does multiple types of damage their intention was to leave it up to GM's discretion.
So if you've been houseruling odds are you are still doing things correctly.
Their words do seem to indicate that it can apply towards any type of damage which kinda leads me towards the viewpoint that it blocks the physical and then from it's remaining hardness or item hp (if any) it blocks the energy damage.
So 5 slashing and 5 fire damage against a 6 hardness shield would block 6 total damage and 4 remaining fire damage would go through.
Same for the question of in what order resistances would be applied. Totally up to the GM it seems. I would lean towards the option that had players not having to damage their shield in order to take advantage of their resistances but seems like even if you do it the other way neither is wrong.
That is probably for the best, because I could definitely see certain damage types interacting differently. Alignment damage should probably just bypass the shield entirely. Fire damage probably shouldn't hit the player unless the hardness of the shield is overcome.
I saw someone mention a shield with a hardness 10. That's insane. Where would you get an item like that? Or is there a spell or item enchantment for it.
I saw someone mention a shield with a hardness 10. That's insane. Where would you get an item like that? Or is there a spell or item enchantment for it.
Adamantine Shield (level 8 item) has 10 hardness, as does the high grade cold iron shield (level 15) and sturdy shield (level 7). The orichalcum shield (level 17) starts at hardness 14. The indestructible shield (level 18) has hardness 13.
That sounds like the way to go then!
For me, the +2 AC is valuable. Not so much to keep from being hit. But to keep from being hit by 10 over the AC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw someone mention a shield with a hardness 10. That's insane. Where would you get an item like that? Or is there a spell or item enchantment for it.
A level 4 Champion (or a level 3 Champion in a home game where the GM allows access to level 4 items) with a Divine Shield Ally (level 3 Champion ability) and a Minor Sturdy Shield (Level 4, common item, 100gp) can wield that item with Hardness 10 and 96 hit points (BT 48).
Now that the Lost Omens books are legal for organized play, though, my PFS Champion (soon-to-be Lastwall Knight) will have that hardness up to 12* in defense of his friends and fellow Pathfinders in short order! ;)
*
Hope that helps!