Can you raise a broken shield? and is t worth it to have a shield?


Rules Discussion


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.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

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.

CRB PG. 618 "Broken Condition" wrote:

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.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HammerJack wrote:

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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goldryno wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

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


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is the link to the discussion:
Seminar discussion

Here is Mark's post:

3Doubloons wrote:
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?
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Puna'chong wrote:

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.

Not really. You can't know for sure that you would take damage from some attacks unless the damage has already be rolled.

Silver Crusade

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.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

(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.

1. Roll the dice indicated by the weapon, unarmed attack, or spell, and apply the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply to the result of the roll.
2. Determine the damage type.
3. Apply the target’s immunities, weaknesses, and resistances to the damage.
4. If any damage remains, reduce the target’s Hit Points by that amount.

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!


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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JESSE L wrote:
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.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>

I'm bringin it back man.

Grand Lodge

beowulf99 wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>

I'm bringin it back man.

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

Sovereign Court

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.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

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


Wheldrake wrote:

But... why does the DM call Ted a "dope"? <g>

Because he didn't have resistance to slashing.

Vigilant Seal

Ascalaphus wrote:

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


Shu Hartomes wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
Shu Hartomes wrote:
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... ;) ;) ;)

Not necessarily... sounds like they might be blocking for other people :D


Goldryno wrote:

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.

You do whatever in your game.

Just be aware your houserule makes shields MUCH MUCH less worthwhile than RAI.


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.

Grand Lodge

Zapp wrote:

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.


Thod wrote:

Oil of mending is 9 gp for the same benefit - albeit takes more effort.

But cost efficient it isn't. Haven't looked what the cost is to rather take the damage and to heal instead.

No, repairing the shield after the fact isn't what this is about.

It's about being able to block an attack without outright destroying your shield.

The point is that you can do a shield block against an attack that deals ten more points of damage.

The point isn't to worry about shield repair. The point is to increase the value of the one shield block you do each combat.

Whether you use oil of mending or repair is a minor issue.

Whether you can block a largish attack without destroying your shield is much more valuable. That's the #1 complaint about PF2 shields!

Not talking Sturdy shields now. The other shields, the ones with desirable magic powers. +10 hp is like upgrading the shield ten whole levels or thereabouts(!).

Even if you need to buy a bucketload of pebbles, they're only 13 gp a pop. And yet, they can effectively turn a 500 gp shield into a 5000 gp one (more or less), in what kind of attack it can block without getting destroyed.

Exo-Guardians

Ravingdork wrote:

(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.

1. Roll the dice indicated by the weapon, unarmed attack, or spell, and apply the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply to the result of the roll.
2. Determine the damage type.
3. Apply the target’s immunities, weaknesses, and resistances to the damage.
4. If any damage remains, reduce the target’s Hit Points by that amount.

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."

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saros Palanthios wrote:

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.

Shield Block wrote:


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.


Cydeth wrote:
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?


beowulf99 wrote:
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.
Ubertron_X wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
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.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ubertron_X wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
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.


Saros Palanthios wrote:


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.

I think Pathfinder 2 is so clearly a gamer's game that it's fairly obvious real-world logic should not be applied, and that doing so might lead you into drawing the wrong conclusions.

Read the rules. Apply the rules. That is all.

Or, put otherwise, the world of PF2 operates on a different set of laws of physics. One where dragons can fly, fireballs can be cast, and where shields operate in a fashion decidedly unlike our own world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
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'...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Zapp wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:


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.

Absolutely a reasonable houserule.

At the risk of coming across as too reasonable ;) just want to point out that my post weren't "it's RAW".

It was specifically an example of using "logic" and "that's how it must work" reasoning to arrive at a position that just happens to be equal to the RAW.

My point is that, yes, you can houserule because you find that reasonable. But you can also not houserule, not because "no houserules", but because you find that the RAW does make sense from a non-rulesy viewpoint.

Thus both houseruling it and not houseruling it can be said to be reasonable.

:)


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.

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
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.


Goldryno wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
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.


Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
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.

Vigilant Seal

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
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! ;)

* Everstand Stance feat

Hope that helps!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Can you raise a broken shield? and is t worth it to have a shield? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.