Shields blocking: Unknown damage or known damage


Rules Discussion

101 to 150 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
YuriP wrote:
Lycar wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

So to collect a few things -

Shield Block works fairly well if you know the damage before deciding whether to block. That at least lets you decide whether you want to block a blow that would break or destroy the shield. Circumstantial evidence points to this being the designer intent.

It may offend some peoples' sense of plausibility, but I think we've also been able to swallow other practical implausibilities. For example, a barbarian with 1 HP left hits just as hard as one that's still got 100. The 1HP one isn't collapsing from the pain or anything. Playing a "death spiral" wounding system wouldn't really be fun in Pathfinder, so we sacrifice some realism for a game that runs better.

Thank you! This should really answer the original question of this thread.

Also, nice summary.

That is, the shields will never break (except in cases of extreme extremity), they will only be useless to block when opponents start to appear that cause a minimum damage equal to hardness.

nope shields will break. They just wont be destroyed


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Lycar wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

So to collect a few things -

Shield Block works fairly well if you know the damage before deciding whether to block. That at least lets you decide whether you want to block a blow that would break or destroy the shield. Circumstantial evidence points to this being the designer intent.

It may offend some peoples' sense of plausibility, but I think we've also been able to swallow other practical implausibilities. For example, a barbarian with 1 HP left hits just as hard as one that's still got 100. The 1HP one isn't collapsing from the pain or anything. Playing a "death spiral" wounding system wouldn't really be fun in Pathfinder, so we sacrifice some realism for a game that runs better.

Thank you! This should really answer the original question of this thread.

Also, nice summary.

That is, the shields will never break (except in cases of extreme extremity), they will only be useless to block when opponents start to appear that cause a minimum damage equal to hardness.
nope shields will break. They just wont be destroyed

I think you don't understand the irony behind.

None player will choose to broke the shield if they know the damage. Why someone will do this and loose the shield AC if they know that all attacks will broke the shield? It's much easier to heal themselves than repair a broken shield, specially during an encounter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Lycar wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

So to collect a few things -

Shield Block works fairly well if you know the damage before deciding whether to block. That at least lets you decide whether you want to block a blow that would break or destroy the shield. Circumstantial evidence points to this being the designer intent.

It may offend some peoples' sense of plausibility, but I think we've also been able to swallow other practical implausibilities. For example, a barbarian with 1 HP left hits just as hard as one that's still got 100. The 1HP one isn't collapsing from the pain or anything. Playing a "death spiral" wounding system wouldn't really be fun in Pathfinder, so we sacrifice some realism for a game that runs better.

Thank you! This should really answer the original question of this thread.

Also, nice summary.

That is, the shields will never break (except in cases of extreme extremity), they will only be useless to block when opponents start to appear that cause a minimum damage equal to hardness.
nope shields will break. They just wont be destroyed

I think you don't understand the irony behind.

None player will choose to broke the shield if they know the damage. Why someone will do this and loose the shield AC if they know that all attacks will broke the shield? It's much easier to heal themselves than repair a broken shield, specially during an encounter.

Because they haven't been blocking and healing them wasn't yet a priority and now major damage is incoming that would down them. Or a rider to an ability might be worth taking that damage to the shield and breaking it to keep the character from getting afflicted with something.

Horizon Hunters

YuriP wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
YuriP wrote:
Lycar wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

So to collect a few things -

Shield Block works fairly well if you know the damage before deciding whether to block. That at least lets you decide whether you want to block a blow that would break or destroy the shield. Circumstantial evidence points to this being the designer intent.

It may offend some peoples' sense of plausibility, but I think we've also been able to swallow other practical implausibilities. For example, a barbarian with 1 HP left hits just as hard as one that's still got 100. The 1HP one isn't collapsing from the pain or anything. Playing a "death spiral" wounding system wouldn't really be fun in Pathfinder, so we sacrifice some realism for a game that runs better.

Thank you! This should really answer the original question of this thread.

Also, nice summary.

That is, the shields will never break (except in cases of extreme extremity), they will only be useless to block when opponents start to appear that cause a minimum damage equal to hardness.
nope shields will break. They just wont be destroyed

I think you don't understand the irony behind.

None player will choose to broke the shield if they know the damage. Why someone will do this and loose the shield AC if they know that all attacks will broke the shield? It's much easier to heal themselves than repair a broken shield, specially during an encounter.

That's just not true in every situation. Yes they will choose to avoid negative consequences like having an item break when they are relatively safe or have alternatives available. But in a dire situation that is far from the worst set of circumstances that can happen (especially when character death is a possibility).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

The things is, most people would really like to use the shield for big hits, i.e to mitigate damage spikes, however current rules iteration works best when using the shield for multiple small hits.

So most people will usually tank criticals with their face and small hits with their shield instead of the other way round, which is quite paradox.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Fumarole wrote:

The Age of Ashes AP has an item that I don't think anyone has mentioned in this thread yet. It seems to be a decent enough item, especially if the GM is kind about the shield being destroyed not negating its magic.

** spoiler omitted **

There's also the Fortifying Pebble of the Lost Omens Character Guide (page 110).

True, but as I consider all trinkets to be a waste of money, its a waste of money (but still one of the better trinkets). Its 13gp to negate 10 damage to your shield. That's 1.3 gold per hp.

Buy minor/lesser potions of healing instead and just take the hit yourself. Minor recover 1d8 for 4gp (average 0.9gp per hp) and lesser recover 2d8+5 for 12gp (average 0.85gp per hp). Oh and you can use more than one per fight.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I would rather lose 2 ac and still be standing than be downed, even if I can be healed after. The shield can likely be healed as well. This is ignoring of course that for the cost of 2gp and a one action cost I can be back at optimal ac even if my super nice shield is broken.


Draco18s wrote:


True, but as I consider all trinkets to be a waste of money, its a waste of money (but still one of the better trinkets). Its 13gp to negate 10 damage to your shield. That's 1.3 gold per hp.

Buy minor/lesser potions of healing instead and just take the hit yourself. Minor recover 1d8 for 4gp (average 0.9gp per hp) and lesser recover 2d8+5 for 12gp (average 0.85gp per hp). Oh and you can use more than one per fight.

Preventing 1 point of damage is way more useful than healing 1 point of damage all by itself.

Add to this the fact the prevention happens with zero action usage while the healing either costs actions or can't happen at all until after the combat.

In that context 1.3 gp is a steal compared to .85 gp.

But why choose? You can do both (if you have access to the Society, of course). So there simply is no issue here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I said, its not the worst trinket out there.

But I wouldn't use it generally. I'd use it when blocking was important enough to risk breaking/destroying the shield and then use the pebble to avoid breaking/destroying.


Talonhawke wrote:
Because they haven't been blocking and healing them wasn't yet a priority and now major damage is incoming that would down them. Or a rider to an ability might be worth taking that damage to the shield and breaking it to keep the character from getting afflicted with something.

You cannot avoid any effect with block except lose HP.

Goldryno wrote:
That's just not true in every situation. Yes they will choose to avoid negative consequences like having an item break when they are relatively safe or have alternatives available. But in a dire situation that is far from the worst set of circumstances that can happen (especially when character death is a possibility).

But's still true for the mostly situations. In most cases that you have to choose to sacrifice a shield in order to not down, you still need that the diference between the damage is smaller than shield hardness, and even so, you will stay up with such low HP thar hardly make the diference during encounter and now without the shield AC.

Usually is better to take the damage, enter in dying state, be healed by someone, even wounded, then back to fight with full AC to try avoid another damage.

Malk_Content wrote:
I would rather lose 2 ac and still be standing than be downed, even if I can be healed after. The shield can likely be healed as well. This is ignoring of course that for the cost of 2gp and a one action cost I can be back at optimal ac even if my super nice shield is broken.

Is ironically much more more harder to heal the shield than a char!

A shield HP can only be restored after 10min repairing it, no mater if using craft or magic (and the spell to do this and usually heal much less than any heal magic). Such action is not possible during encounter. But the heal a char can be done even with just 1 action.

Zapp wrote:
Preventing 1 point of damage is way more useful than healing 1 point of damage all by itself.

Not exactly!

PF2e is a RPG that is much more hard to die than any other I already played because the multiple dying levels that are almost independent from how much damage do you take (except that damage is higher than your entire HP, but in such case you probably can't prevent damage too).
This was created to avoid players death very easily (especially by unexpected very high damage rolls), and with high heals (even lvl1 divine / primal heal, can heavily heal a char or a group, especially at low levels) also make the players exploit it.

With so much high heal the players can easily trade some damage prevention for heal. That's the usually case with shield block.


YuriP wrote:
You cannot avoid any effect with block except lose HP.

If whatever is attacking you has an effect that does additional stuff when it damages you, if your shield reduces all of the damage, the other stuff doesn't happen either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratorin wrote:
YuriP wrote:
You cannot avoid any effect with block except lose HP.
If whatever is attacking you has an effect that does additional stuff when it damages you, if your shield reduces all of the damage, the other stuff doesn't happen either.

After about 3rd level this becomes moot as most monster's minimum damage exceeds the hardness of level-appropriate sheilds. Up around 13th minimum damage starts approaching the BT of level-appropriate shields.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
A shield HP can only be restored after 10min repairing it, no mater if using craft or magic (and the spell to do this and usually heal much less than any heal magic). Such action is not possible during encounter. But the heal a char can be done even with just 1 action.

Mending is incapable of repairing shields until you have access to 2nd level spells (only bucklers are Light).

Quote:
Targets non-magical object of light Bulk or less


Aratorin wrote:
YuriP wrote:
You cannot avoid any effect with block except lose HP.
If whatever is attacking you has an effect that does additional stuff when it damages you, if your shield reduces all of the damage, the other stuff doesn't happen either.

You can't reduce the damage to less than 1, see the errata:

CRB Errata wrote:

CHAPTER 9: PLAYING THE GAME

Page 451: Following the formulas for calculating damage rolls, add the sentence “If the combined penalties on an attack would reduce the damage to 0 or below, you still deal 1 damage.”

Once that the Hardness doesn't count as Resistance, it's probably count as item penalty (but once again the CRB don't explain well how hardness works).

Draco18s wrote:

Mending is incapable of repairing shields until you have access to 2nd level spells (only bucklers are Light).

Quote:
Targets non-magical object of light Bulk or less

You'r right, it's worse, it can only repair shield only when used in lvl 2 spell.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we can all agree that blocking with a shield is best done at low levels where the Hardness value is close enough to the average strike damage to be effectively used. A steel shield at 2gp with a 5 hardness will be very effective against a level -1 to level 3 moderate monster's average strike damage.

From Table 2-10: Strike Damage from the Monster Creation document, the average damage for a level -1 to level 3 moderate monster is: 3,4,5,8.

So for attacks from these monsters, it is not that important to know the damage beforehand, you will most likely want to use the Shield Block reaction (if not saving it for a strike of some kind). Even if destroyed, replacing a 1-2 gp item is not that difficult.

For martial characters that receive shield block as part of their class, there is no reason not to use shields to block against monsters at levels -1 to 3 unless you want to use both hands for a weapon.

Classes with Shield Block: Champion, Cleric (WarPriest), Druid (but with a more limited hardness of 3 from a wooden shield) and Fighter.

For classes that do not receive shield block, unless you are a human with a Versatile Heritage you cannot get the General shield block feat until you are level 3. Making it a harder choice for a feat that will most likely have diminishing returns starting at your next level.

The average moderate monster strike damage from levels 4 to 7 is 12, 13, 15, 17.

Getting the 5 damage reduction from a normal steel shield block helps, but the risk to your shield (especially from a critically successful strike) goes up significantly. The normal steel shield probably breaks after a couple of blocks. For these levels, if you do not want your shield destroyed, knowing the damage before deciding to block is important.

If you have invested a significant amount of gold in a specific shield, it is even more important - especially since most specific shields do not provide a level appropriate increase in hardness and HP (yes, sturdy shields are best mostly due to the increase in HP).

After level 7, normal shields risk being destroyed by a single block. Even level appropriate sturdy shields will only survive a few blocks before becoming broken.

A level 10 moderate monster's average strike damage is 22 against a level 10 sturdy shield's hardness of 13 results in 9 damage to the shield with each block. The sturdy shield breaks on average with the 6th block. So the 1000 gp item saves you from 6*13=78 points of damage before requiring repair and needs to block against a hit with over 54+13(67) points of damage to go from just above broken to destroyed - which will most likely only occur from a critically successful strike.

From what I can see, using specific shields to block damage from level appropriate monsters has a high risk of being destroyed unless it is a sturdy shield. The sturdy shield's risk comes mostly from critically successful strikes.

It seems to me that you really don't need to know the damage from incoming strikes unless you are using specific shields or you don't want the shield to be broken. For normal/non-sturdy shields it matters most from levels 4 to 7. For sturdy shields you only need to know if the strike was critical. Since the item level for most non-sturdy specific shields is more than 7, their value in blocking incoming damage from level appropriate monsters is minimal and risks being destroyed even by a single block.

Since the designers did not provide sufficient spells, runes or other items to significantly improve a shield's hardness, broken threshold or HP values, it appears they are only really useful at low levels. Unless you are a champion with shield ally, anything other than a sturdy shield should not be used for a Shield Block reaction after level 7 unless you accept the fact that doing so will most likely result in your shield being destroyed (Indestructible Shield being the lone exception).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
YuriP wrote:
You cannot avoid any effect with block except lose HP.
If whatever is attacking you has an effect that does additional stuff when it damages you, if your shield reduces all of the damage, the other stuff doesn't happen either.

You can't reduce the damage to less than 1, see the errata:

CRB Errata wrote:

CHAPTER 9: PLAYING THE GAME

Page 451: Following the formulas for calculating damage rolls, add the sentence “If the combined penalties on an attack would reduce the damage to 0 or below, you still deal 1 damage.”

That refers to damage penalties. Resistances/hardness can prevent all damage as they apply to a different step.


corwyn42 wrote:

Getting the 5 damage reduction from a normal steel shield block helps, but the risk to your shield (especially from a critically successful strike) goes up significantly. The normal steel shield probably breaks after a couple of blocks. For these levels, if you do not want your shield destroyed, knowing the damage before deciding to block is important.

If you have invested a significant amount of gold in a specific shield, it is even more important - especially since most specific shields do not provide a level appropriate increase in hardness (yes, sturdy shields are best mostly due to the increase in...

That's the point that I'm talking about.

In the end know the damage before apply it doesn't make that much diference. If the player knows the attack roll of a monster the player can easily calc the damage range of that monster and calc if worth to block it or try other tactics. The only mainly diference, is that if the players know the damage before they can security choose when their shield will broke, if they don't know they need to analyze the risks before try, but is not like they done this blindly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A house rule that I made and worked well:
Sturdy is now a rune to be added into shields.
Simple and efficient, same price, just did the math to subtract the stell shield Hardness and HP and give it as a bonus to add to any shield you like.
That way you can still block with the shield you want.
The champion in my game is totally shield themed with Everstanding stance, shield ally, etc... And it works like the party tank but still have a hard time to decide when he needs to block or not.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
YuriP wrote:
corwyn42 wrote:

Getting the 5 damage reduction from a normal steel shield block helps, but the risk to your shield (especially from a critically successful strike) goes up significantly. The normal steel shield probably breaks after a couple of blocks. For these levels, if you do not want your shield destroyed, knowing the damage before deciding to block is important.

If you have invested a significant amount of gold in a specific shield, it is even more important - especially since most specific shields do not provide a level appropriate increase in hardness (yes, sturdy shields are best mostly due to the increase in...

That's the point that I'm talking about.

In the end know the damage before apply it doesn't make that much diference. If the player knows the attack roll of a monster the player can easily calc the damage range of that monster and calc if worth to block it or try other tactics. The only mainly diference, is that if the players know the damage before they can security choose when their shield will broke, if they don't know they need to analyze the risks before try, but is not like they done this blindly.

So basically it makes little difference to your advanced players who understand the system math and have enough experience to intuit enemy damage ranges from experience. On the other hand that is basically impossible to newer players or less mechanically minded players.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Correct. Knowing the damage before deciding to block will help with newer players, but hopefully they should figure this out once they start leveling up and finding out how fragile their shields are at higher levels. They won't need to be a math genius - they will find this out after their shield breaks or is destroyed and now they have an action available every round since they can no longer raise it. They will know their AC no longer includes the +2 bonus and they are more vulnerable to damage.

Some players will always want to know so they can mitigate how many times they need to repair their shields and to keep them from being destroyed. Other players will figure out that healing a player can be done in combat a lot easier than repairing a shield.

Either way players will adapt their play style to match the GM's choice to let the players know the damage amount before hand or to withhold that knowledge.

It is clear to me that the longer someone plays, the better their understanding of mechanics involved. We all have to make decisions every day without having all the relevant details. Players should be able to play and have fun whether the GM allows them to know the damage or not.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
corwyn42 wrote:
Players should be able to play and have fun whether the GM allows them to know the damage or not.

I'm sure there are a lot of bad house rules that can ultimately be minor enough to not ruin a game, but being tolerable doesn't make them good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So yeah I'm all for a group of advanced players changing the game to make it harder for themselves. The point is that the base rules don't require you to be an advanced player (because most people won't be) and we've had developer insight saying the RAI are the easier ones.


YuriP wrote:
In the end know the damage before apply it doesn't make that much diference(sic).

If it doesn't matter, then why go against the designers' intent and penalise players for no good reason?


Lycar wrote:
YuriP wrote:
In the end know the damage before apply it doesn't make that much difference (sic).
If it doesn't matter, then why go against the designers' intent and penalize players for no good reason?

You can choose many reasons, between them:

  • To allow the shields broken independently from only the player's will, giving more tension and less control in how much damage they take from an opponent attack.
  • To give little more realism not exactly knowing when the shield will broken and make them create tactical choices with some risks, not only to do the obvious movement to block until the limit of the shield BT then stop to block any more than hardness to avoid the broken. Know the damage before is not a tactical choice is only a temp HP with hardness.

    But as I said, from me I'm now clarified to know the damage don't make that much difference in face of the fact that shield block are useless even against many of even low level opponents. Ex.:

    See the case of a fighter with Str 18 and a rapier that some times uses a Power Attack:

  • It can broke any buckler with a single action hit, because the damage is between 4-9 (1d6 +4), so will vary between heavily damage the shield, broken or completely destroy it with a weapon that supposedly is more slim and fragile than a shield.
  • Can also broke wooden shields in a single action attack, with little more difficult, but with 33% of chance (just need to roll 5/6 with d6), is also possible even to destroy a wood shield with with use of the power attack once this can do more than double and a rapier can even completely destroy the shield beyond repairs.
  • For steel and tower shields the thing become little more difficult, my fighter with a rapier example now need to use a power attack to have a chance to broke the shield in a single blow. But it still can, and if we change it's weapon for a some heavy one like a greataxe to not use power attack to broke, but if it chose to use he can also completely destroy the shield with just one greataxe blow.

    So thinking like this is easily to understand that's why was made such workaround like solution to know the damage before block. It's a try to diminish the problem of the weak shields easlily putting such ugly solution instead of try to re-calc everything.

    If the Shield wasn't so weak know the damage would be even less important and some chars could study the enemys while block.

    Ironically I was recently search some videos to know how resistant is a wood shield and notice that probably the Samurai's. solution was that one more closest to the reality than I was thought ..


  • 2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Quote:
    easily to understand that's why was made such workaround

    Who says it's a workaround? You keep phrasing it like this is some dire compromise to the integrity of the game but I'm not seeing it.

    Sovereign Court

    Squiggit wrote:
    Quote:
    easily to understand that's why was made such workaround
    Who says it's a workaround? You keep phrasing it like this is some dire compromise to the integrity of the game but I'm not seeing it.

    Because anyone who has ever played most other RPG systems knows that you usually need to declare your defenses before the damage of an attack is rolled, you don't go back in time after an attack has literally finished and then decide to block with your shield or perform a dodge or whatever. I can't think or any other game where you need to wait until the damage of an attack is rolled before deciding to shield block. That you almost need to by RAW in PF2 is a workaround or "kludge".


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Samurai wrote:
    I can't think or any other game where you need to wait until the damage of an attack is rolled before deciding to shield block. That you almost need to by RAW in PF2 is a workaround or "kludge".

    Then again, I can't think of any game with a shield block mechanic that also does damage to shields outside of dedicated combat actions. It is the shield damage mechanic that makes this 'kludge' necessary in the first place, and THAT is necessary so that the reliable DR that shields offer doesn't end up making everything but Sword & Board fighting obsolete.

    Anyone remember Power Attack & Shock Trooper? Makes playing anything but two-handed weapon users a losing proposition. PF 1 nailed in the proud nail that was 3.x Power Attack, bringing the fighting styles much closer together, but outside of Blender Rogues, THF is still King of Damage.

    And while I appreciate your attempt to solve the problems that this creates, making every penetrating attack deal only 1 damage to the shield is just 'Dings 2.0'. And I'm glad they did not went with that gamey mechanic.

    However, if the complaint is that 'players will block weak attacks, but not strong ones', maybe it would help if shields *did* block ALL damage up to their combined Hardness and HP? With the caveat that they still break and become unusable once past the breaking threshold?

    So if a steel shield blocks 8 damage, it blocks it totally, but takes 3 damage itself. If you block a hit of 12 damage, shield takes 7 but still works. Get hit for 20 points? Shield still saves you but is now broken with 15 damage taken. Ogre hammers you for 30 damage? Shield's so much scrap metal and you still take 5 damage, but not 25 *and* a broken shield like now.

    Maybe that is a compromise that does not make shields overpowered, but makes people inclined to risk their 'ablative armour' a bit more often.


    I said that the blocks works like a workaround.

    Because it not only compromises for such unatural order to do the things. If the Shield Block was an isolated feat without other feats of at last 2 classes and some itens depending of how it's works, there would be not a great problem with it. But when we starts to connect weak shields with this strange way to calc block with feats that increases the block needs like fighters AGGRESSIVE BLOCK [FREE-ACTION], POWERFUL SHOVE, REFLEXIVE SHIELD, SHIELD WARDEN, QUICK SHIELD BLOCK, FLINGING SHOVE, IMPROVED REFLEXIVE SHIELD, or champion SHIELD WARDEN, QUICK BLOCK, SHIELD OF RECKONING [REACTION], SHIELD OF GRACE with the fact of many of high-level special/magic shields don't also has a great BT and in join with the fact that shields repair take many time to do, makes the entire reaction increasingly more unbalanced.

    You see this easily when you compare the shoves feats, that works with both two handed weapons (Brutish Shove) and shields (Agressive Shield), you will notice when you are doing the Shove with a two handed weapon you can do this many times as you want in same encounter, while when doing with the shield, you are not only limited to the fact that you can only do this while blocking (whats expected) but you also has to consider that puting shove feats based in shield block you are limited in how many times you can do this in a combat depending of how weak your shield is. Becouse if your shield brokes you can't do anymore, if you don't block to avoid the shield broken you can't even starts the shove condition.

    So you spend the same feats number to do the same thing, but when doing with a shield you way more limite than with a two handed weapon. And this is only 1 example, there are so many other cases of strange unbalances and weirdness with shield block in this entire topic that shows that the block reaction is poorly maded.

    Sovereign Court

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    If you want to heavily use shield block based feats, then taking the sturdy shield is a no-brainer. Even if there was another shield that was almost as sturdy as the sturdy shield, you'd probably still take the sturdy shield. Because if blocking is really your life, then you want the best blocking shield.

    But even then, the "know the damage before deciding to block" rule works to your advantage, so what's the complaint?


    Even with sturdy shield solution still have some heavier restrictions.

    This shields are expensive, and is usually accessible only after lvl 3 (if u earn enough money or your GM put one in your adventure treasure), so until there you have to face with your fragile shield.

    Maybe if you make a agree with rest of your party you may buy it earlier.

    "CRB pg. 509 wrote:


    TABLE 10–9: PARTY TREASURE BY LEVEL

    Level - Total Value - Permanent Items - Consumables - Party Currency - Additional PC
    1 175 gp 2nd: 2, 1st: 2* 2nd: 2, 1st: 3 40 gp 10 gp
    2 300 gp 3rd: 2, 2nd: 2 3rd: 2, 2nd: 2, 1st: 2 70 gp 18 gp
    3 500 gp 4th: 2, 3rd: 2 4th: 2, 3rd: 2, 2nd: 2 120 gp 30 gp
    4 850 gp 5th: 2, 4th: 2 5th: 2, 4th: 2, 3rd: 2 200 gp 50 gp
    5 1,350 gp 6th: 2, 5th: 2 6th: 2, 5th: 2, 4th: 2 320 gp 80 gp
    6 2,000 gp 7th: 2, 6th: 2 7th: 2, 6th: 2, 5th: 2 500 gp 125 gp
    7 2,900 gp 8th: 2, 7th: 2 8th: 2, 7th: 2, 6th: 2 720 gp 180 gp
    8 4,000 gp 9th: 2, 8th: 2 9th: 2, 8th: 2, 7th: 2 1,000 gp 250 gp
    9 5,700 gp 10th: 2, 9th: 2 10th: 2, 9th: 2, 8th: 2 1,400 gp 350 gp
    10 8,000 gp 11th: 2, 10th: 2 11th: 2, 10th: 2, 9th: 2 2,000 gp 500 gp
    11 11,500 gp 12th: 2, 11th: 2 12th: 2, 11th: 2, 10th: 2 2,800 gp 700 gp
    12 16,500 gp 13th: 2, 12th: 2 13th: 2, 12th: 2, 11th: 2 4,000 gp 1,000 gp
    13 25,000 gp 14th: 2, 13th: 2 14th: 2, 13th: 2, 12th: 2 6,000 gp 1,500 gp
    14 36,500 gp 15th: 2, 14th: 2 15th: 2, 14th: 2, 13th: 2 9,000 gp 2,250 gp
    15 54,500 gp 16th: 2, 15th: 2 16th: 2, 15th: 2, 14th: 2 13,000 gp 3,250 gp
    16 82,500 gp 17th: 2, 16th: 2 17th: 2, 16th: 2, 15th: 2 20,000 gp 5,000 gp
    17 128,000 gp 18th: 2, 17th: 2 18th: 2, 17th: 2, 16th: 2 30,000 gp 7,500 gp
    18 208,000 gp 19th: 2, 18th: 2 19th: 2, 18th: 2, 17th: 2 48,000 gp 12,000 gp
    19 355,000 gp 20th: 2, 19th: 2 20th: 2, 19th: 2, 18th: 2 80,000 gp 20,000 gp
    20 490,000 gp 20th: 4 20th: 4, 19th: 2 140,000 gp 35,000 gp
    * Many 1st-level permanent items should be items from Chapter 6 instead of magic items.

    "CRB pg. 588 wrote:

    Type minor; Level 4; Price 100 gp

    The shield has Hardness 8, HP 64, and BT 32.

    This also remember a thing, the Sturdy Shields are great to block but and for repairs?

    Even a minor Sturdy Shield is a magical abjuration shield that make the steel shield to have a great BT, but I don't remember none rule talking about repair a magical item, so there's no need to have Magical Crafting feat (page 263) to do the repairs?

    This is based on the concept behind "if there's a doubt of a thing being to good to be true, probably not work that way" so a magic item is also only repairable with Magical Crafting feat?

    And also will take a good time to completely repair it (but for a stronger shield this probably isn't a problem and you can easily wait to arrive in a safe place to full repair it).


    Ascalaphus wrote:

    If you want to heavily use shield block based feats, then taking the sturdy shield is a no-brainer. Even if there was another shield that was almost as sturdy as the sturdy shield, you'd probably still take the sturdy shield. Because if blocking is really your life, then you want the best blocking shield.

    But even then, the "know the damage before deciding to block" rule works to your advantage, so what's the complaint?

    This of course assumes you have 100% free access to sturdy shields of the highest level whenever you need to. It also means that non-sturdy shields are just trash you haven't sold off for 1/2 cost. It's not an ideal situation.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Samurai wrote:
    you don't go back in time

    You don't here, either. "Go back in time" is just a contrivance you've invented because you feel the need to come up with reasons to try to discredit the system for whatever reason.

    Better to call it 'unnatural' or make up assertions like this than argue the merits of the mechanic, I guess.

    Sovereign Court

    YuriP wrote:

    Even with sturdy shield solution still have some heavier restrictions.

    This shields are expensive, and is usually accessible only after lvl 3 (if u earn enough money or your GM put one in your adventure treasure), so until there you have to face with your fragile shield.

    Maybe if you make a agree with rest of your party you may buy it earlier.

    (snip table for space)

    This also remember a thing, the Sturdy Shields are great to block but and for repairs?

    Even a minor Sturdy Shield is a magical abjuration shield that make the steel shield to have a great BT, but I don't remember none rule talking about repair a magical item, so there's no need to have Magical Crafting feat (page 263) to do the repairs?

    This is based on the concept behind "if there's a doubt of a thing being to good to be true, probably not work that way" so a magic item is also only repairable with Magical Crafting feat?

    And also will take a good time to completely repair it (but for a stronger shield this probably isn't a problem and you can easily wait to arrive in a safe place to full repair it).

    So the first Sturdy Shield is a level 4 item. This means that you should not get access to them much earlier than level 4. (Table 10-9 shows that a 4-player party should find about 2 level 4 items while playing character level 3 to 4, and 2 more during character level 4 to 5. But that also includes Striking weapons.)

    So at for example level 2, the "super-fragile" steel shield (Hardness 5, BT 10, HP 20) is exactly as strong as you're supposed to have. We'd all like more, but basically, shields getting broken now and then is the intended way to play the game.

    ---

    As for repairing: there is nothing that says you need Magical Crafting to repair magic items. The "Repair" activity of Crafting doesn't say so; the Magical Crafting feat doesn't say so; and the Crafting section of the Crafting & Treasure chapter doesn't say so. So there is no evidence that you need that feat to repair stuff.

    Sovereign Court

    graystone wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:

    If you want to heavily use shield block based feats, then taking the sturdy shield is a no-brainer. Even if there was another shield that was almost as sturdy as the sturdy shield, you'd probably still take the sturdy shield. Because if blocking is really your life, then you want the best blocking shield.

    But even then, the "know the damage before deciding to block" rule works to your advantage, so what's the complaint?

    This of course assumes you have 100% free access to sturdy shields of the highest level whenever you need to. It also means that non-sturdy shields are just trash you haven't sold off for 1/2 cost. It's not an ideal situation.

    This sounds a bit like you're expecting the worst from the GM. The CRB and the GMG in particular strongly hint at the GM to give out treasure that the players will actually be happy with.

    Gamemastery Guide p. 38 wrote:

    As you choose treasure, look at the flow of treasure in the campaign, and see which PCs are ahead and which are behind. It’s usually best to mix “core items,” treasure linked to a PC’s main abilities, with treasure that has unusual, less broadly applicable powers. For instance, a champion might not purchase plate armor of the deep, but they will likely wear it if they find it. These items should always be useful—a party without a primal spellcaster won’t have much use for an animal staff. The number of core items to give out depends partly on how much the campaign allows for crafting and buying items.

    • If there are few limits on buying items and there’s plenty of time to craft, make about half the permanent items you give out core items. The PCs have plenty of ways to obtain the items they want.
    • If purchasing items and obtaining formulas is somewhat difficult, make about three-fourths of the permanent items core items. If a PC really wants an item, they might have to do extra work to get it.
    • If there are no magic item shops or other ways to purchase items and formulas, make all the permanent items core items. In this case, it might work better for your game to use Automatic Bonus Progression (page 196) to eliminate the need for core items.

    If you're playing a shield-block focused character, then the GM should notice that and realize that a shield with good HP/hardness would qualify as a "core" item for you while a shield that's not good for blocking wouldn't.

    If you can never buy the items you want and keep finding ones you don't, then it's time to have a talk with the GM.

    I mean, never getting sturdy shields on a shield block character is not that different from never being able to get handwraps for a monk. That's not a flaw of the game system, that's something that's gone wrong in the way your group plays the game.


    Ascalaphus wrote:
    This sounds a bit like you're expecting the worst from the GM. The CRB and the GMG in particular strongly hint at the GM to give out treasure that the players will actually be happy with.

    BUYING AND SELLING: Gamemastery Guide pg# 24. "The game leaves it up to you to determine what items the PCs can and can’t purchase, and the final market Price for them. Settlements the size of a town or bigger typically have at least one vendor for basic, common gear, and even magic and alchemical items of 1st level. Beyond that, it all depends on how much you want to allow the players to determine their abilities and how much verisimilitude you

    want in your game. You can set the specifics where you need, but let’s look at three possibilities."

    #1 "PCs can buy what they want where they want."
    #2 "PCs can buy what they want but must put in additional effort."
    #3 "Magical markets are rare or nonexistent."

    All three are presented as viable options and not as a dick move by a DM.

    ADJUSTING TREASURE: core page # 510
    "This is especially common in adventures that have little downtime or that take place far from civilization. If the group goes a long time without being able to purchase or Craft useful items, the PCs will be flush with coins and valuables but behind on useful equipment. In a situation like this, you can either place more useful treasure in the adventure or introduce NPCs who are willing to trade." Again, it's presented that you can have a game where you can't buy what you want it when you want it without the DM being a tool. "Useful treasure" and "NPC's who are willing to trade" are a far cry from "PCs can buy what they want where they want."

    Ascalaphus wrote:
    If you're playing a shield-block focused character, then the GM should notice that and realize that a shield with good HP/hardness would qualify as a "core" item for you while a shield that's not good for blocking wouldn't.

    Gamemastery Guide p# 38

    "For instance, a champion might not purchase plate armor of the deep, but they will likely wear it if they find it. These items should always be useful—a party without a primal spellcaster won’t have much use for an animal staff." A core item isn't a single particular item: it's a magic shield of the appropriate level for a shield user. If you think the only possible "core item" is one specific item, that in itself is an issue. It's like saying that in the "plate armor of the deep" that instead the only possible item that could be core would be celestial armor and nothing else... It's not as you said that it's "treasure that the players will actually be happy with" but one that "they will likely wear it if they find it". If you're 10th level and you find a Dragonslayer's Shield and the last shield you had was a Spined Shield it's something you'll wear.

    Sovereign Court

    graystone wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    This sounds a bit like you're expecting the worst from the GM. The CRB and the GMG in particular strongly hint at the GM to give out treasure that the players will actually be happy with.

    BUYING AND SELLING: Gamemastery Guide pg# 24. "The game leaves it up to you to determine what items the PCs can and can’t purchase, and the final market Price for them. Settlements the size of a town or bigger typically have at least one vendor for basic, common gear, and even magic and alchemical items of 1st level. Beyond that, it all depends on how much you want to allow the players to determine their abilities and how much verisimilitude you

    want in your game. You can set the specifics where you need, but let’s look at three possibilities."

    #1 "PCs can buy what they want where they want."
    #2 "PCs can buy what they want but must put in additional effort."
    #3 "Magical markets are rare or nonexistent."

    All three are presented as viable options and not as a dick move by a DM.

    CRB p. 510 wrote:

    ADJUSTING TREASURE

    This is especially common in adventures that have little downtime or that take place far from civilization. If the group goes a long time without being able to purchase or Craft useful items, the PCs will be flush with coins and valuables but behind on useful equipment. In a situation like this, you can either place more useful treasure in the adventure or introduce NPCs who are willing to trade.
    Again, it's presented that you can have a game where you can't buy what you want it when you want it without the DM being a tool. "Useful treasure" and "NPC's who are willing to trade" are a far cry from "PCs can buy what they want where they want."

    It seems we read the same text quite differently. What I'm seeing is that one way or another, you should facilitate PCs getting useful items. While it might not be 100% the first choices on their wishlist, it should still be adequate. Giving people a shield that simply doesn't work for their build, doesn't count as giving them useful stuff.

    graystone wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    If you're playing a shield-block focused character, then the GM should notice that and realize that a shield with good HP/hardness would qualify as a "core" item for you while a shield that's not good for blocking wouldn't.
    Gamemastery Guide p. 38 wrote:
    For instance, a champion might not purchase plate armor of the deep, but they will likely wear it if they find it. These items should always be useful—a party without a primal spellcaster won’t have much use for an animal staff.
    A core item isn't a single particular item: it's a magic shield of the appropriate level for a shield user. If you think the only possible "core item" is one specific item, that in itself is an issue. It's like saying that in the "plate armor of the deep" that instead the only possible item that could be core would be celestial armor and nothing else... It's not as you said that it's "treasure that the players will actually be happy with" but one that "they will likely wear it if they find it". If you're 10th level and you find a Dragonslayer's Shield and the last shield you had was a Spined Shield it's something you'll wear.

    It seems we're disagreeing on how to read "core item". As I see it, the paragraph says the core item should be useful to the character. A steel armor is not a core item for a druid, even if it's level-appropriate. A fragile shield is not a core item for a shield block focused character, because the GM can see that it wouldn't be very useful for the character.

    The difference with the plate armor of the deep is that while it might not be the player's first choice, the armor is still able to do the job. For a champion anyway - the class that stereotypically wears heavy armor. If the particular paladin had been a low strength high dexterity archer, then it wouldn't have been appropriate.


    Ascalaphus wrote:


    So at for example level 2, the "super-fragile" steel shield (Hardness 5, BT 10, HP 20) is exactly as strong as you're supposed to have. We'd all like more, but basically, shields getting broken now and then is the intended way to play the game.

    I don't think anyone has complained about the concept of having to lug around a reserve shield to use while your main shield is broken.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Not compared to the real complaints, I mean.

    The real complaints are:
    - you need to determine damage before decided whether to block, which makes no in-game sense
    - shields with cool abilities are too fragile to block with, which makes no in-game sense

    In short: the complain is that Paizo wrote up a rule that feels entirely divorced from the game reality. It feels like an artifical construct, something that only makes sense if you look at it from a rules laywer's perspective, and turn a blind eye towards immersiveness and verisimilitude.

    In shortest: the complaint is that the rule is actively unfun.


    Ascalaphus wrote:
    As for repairing: there is nothing that says you need Magical Crafting to repair magic items. The "Repair" activity of Crafting doesn't say so; the Magical Crafting feat doesn't say so; and the Crafting section of the Crafting & Treasure chapter doesn't say so. So there is no evidence that you need that feat to repair stuff.

    But this still don't make much sense. Is like allow anyone with Craft able to repair anything no matter how complex is the magic or alchemic was imbued in it.

    Is just like ask a metalworker to do repairs in a car that no longer rides.

    Zapp wrote:
    I don't think anyone has complained about the concept of having to lug around a reserve shield to use while your main shield is broken.

    I complained about this.

    Change shields don't allow you to have a backpack and is not practical and is dangerous to do during combat. Takes much time and risk you to receive an opportunity attack.


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

    I still dont get the "its not realistic" complaint. All we are talking about is the ability to quickly assess the danger of an incoming blow and react accordingly. It's something fighters do all the time. Hell I'm not even that good of a fighter but have made the choice to take a blow or throw up a block in a small moment.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Malk_Content wrote:
    I still dont get the "its not realistic" complaint. All we are talking about is the ability to quickly assess the danger of an incoming blow and react accordingly. It's something fighters do all the time. Hell I'm not even that good of a fighter but have made the choice to take a blow or throw up a block in a small moment.

    Let me help:

    It's one thing to be able to judge roughly how much damage an enemy is likely to inflict. That this is expressed in a single number called "damage" is likely uncontroversial.

    It's a whole different thing (for the posters in question) to be told EXACTLY how much damage the specific blow is going to deal.

    If you really want to compare to real live fighting, then you should have no problem agreeing to the small chance of misjudging the incoming blow.

    For instance (returning to game terms) if your foe is a human NPC guard with a longsword. Given your level, you would deal 2d8+4 damage yourself, so you guesstimate ~13 damage on average.

    Now, are you okay with your shield blown to bits if
    a) the guard possess a special ability, such as a power attacky thing, nearly doubling the damage?
    b) the guard scores a critical hit, actually doubling the damage?


    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

    Well I think that is where we draw different lines at realistic and simulationist. To add reasonable variability the game would have to either drastically reduce the dice portion of damage or add in an extra step to the calculation.


    Malk_Content wrote:
    Well I think that is where we draw different lines at realistic and simulationist. To add reasonable variability the game would have to either drastically reduce the dice portion of damage or add in an extra step to the calculation.

    You said you didn't get the "its not realistic" complaint.

    Hopefully, now you do.

    It doesn't feel realistic to be able to determine with 100% accuracy if your shield will hold or not.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    That seems more like a complaint about the concept of damage and hit points as a whole than specifically an issue with shields within that framework.


    Squiggit wrote:
    That seems more like a complaint about the concept of damage and hit points as a whole than specifically an issue with shields within that framework.

    Presumably posters complaining about how PF2 shields work - and specifically, how they *must* work to not-suck - have issues with shields.

    Not damage.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

    But how shields work is due to the nature of hitpoints. Complaining about that aspect of realism while disregarding the fact that it is that way due to the abstract nature of hp is just kicking it down a step. Your character knows exactly how wounded they are (as a % of "this will kill me") exactly how much a bandage heals them, exactly how hard they were hit in EVERY scenario. But nope its being able to apply that knowledge that is unrealistic.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Zapp wrote:
    Malk_Content wrote:
    Well I think that is where we draw different lines at realistic and simulationist. To add reasonable variability the game would have to either drastically reduce the dice portion of damage or add in an extra step to the calculation.

    You said you didn't get the "its not realistic" complaint.

    Hopefully, now you do.

    It doesn't feel realistic to be able to determine with 100% accuracy if your shield will hold or not.

    It doesn't feel realistic to get hit with 4 100% accurate homing missiles flying out of an old man's hand either. Good thing we aren't playing "Realism the Game".


    Malk_Content wrote:
    But how shields work is due to the nature of hitpoints. Complaining about that aspect of realism while disregarding the fact that it is that way due to the abstract nature of hp is just kicking it down a step. Your character knows exactly how wounded they are (as a % of "this will kill me") exactly how much a bandage heals them, exactly how hard they were hit in EVERY scenario. But nope its being able to apply that knowledge that is unrealistic.

    Passive vs active.

    I'm not sure there's more I can tell you. Either you understand the opposite viewpoint or you don't.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Zapp wrote:
    Malk_Content wrote:
    But how shields work is due to the nature of hitpoints. Complaining about that aspect of realism while disregarding the fact that it is that way due to the abstract nature of hp is just kicking it down a step. Your character knows exactly how wounded they are (as a % of "this will kill me") exactly how much a bandage heals them, exactly how hard they were hit in EVERY scenario. But nope its being able to apply that knowledge that is unrealistic.

    Passive vs active.

    I'm not sure there's more I can tell you. Either you understand the opposite viewpoint or you don't.

    It's not a unique situation in the game. Take Delay Trap: the trap MUST be triggered to use the reaction. If it works you prevent the event that triggered the reaction. Retributive Strike REQUIRES an ally be damaged though the reaction might mean that they don't take any damage. It's a beef with the way the system is made and how reactions work.


    graystone wrote:
    It's not a unique situation in the game. Take Delay Trap: the trap MUST be triggered to use the reaction. If it works you prevent the event that triggered the reaction. Retributive Strike REQUIRES an ally be damaged though the reaction might mean that they don't take any damage. It's a beef with the way the system is made and how reactions work.

    Absolutely. Thank you for helping out

    101 to 150 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Shields blocking: Unknown damage or known damage All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.