| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have been a number of threads about shields. The general consensus is that they have too few hit points to be viable as "permanent" magic items rather than hyped-up consumables.
I thought about adding a new type of rune, specifically for shields, where each +1 would add 5 points to its hardness and +10 to its total hit points. But that would just be delaying (slightly) the inevitable. But what about this:
- Magic shields are not irretrievably destroyed when they are "destroyed". They can still be repaired, perhaps taking double the standard time to do so.
- When damage penetrates the shield's hardness, the character takes all of the excess damage, but the shield only takes half, rounding down. This would be the equivalent of doubling the shield's hit points, but without having to fiddle with the listings in the CRB.
This message will probably get shunted to the "homebrew" forum, but I think it's an important enough issue to be posted here. Something needs to be done.
Other options:
- treat the magic shield's statistics as cumulative with the standard shield's listing.
- treat all magic shields as if they were based on the Sturdy Shield characteristics.
- return to some version of the "dents" system that mitigates the speed at which a shield becomes destroyed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely agree that something needs to be done to fix shields. I don't know how it ever got published with the rules as written. You are encouraged to only use your shield on the weakest of hits, not to reduce the power of high damage attacks, and that's especially true for Druids who can only use non-metallic shields.
My favorite method of fixing them is that when a shield is pierced (or dented, if you prefer, meaning incoming damage exceeds the shield's Hardness), the remaining damage is passed on to the person being protected (usually the wielder) and the shield suffers 1 HP of damage. It doesn't matter how much is passed along to the protected individual, the shield still only suffers 1 HP of damage itself. This also goes for a Repair skill test that gets a Critical Failure (roll 2d6 as if it were an attack, apply Hardness, and if the roll was higher, it loses 1 HP).
When a shield's HP drops below the Broken Threshold, you can still use it to reduce the damage from attacks, but your shield's Item Bonus to AC drops by 1 category (see pg 471 in the CRB). So broken buckers then give no AC item bonus, a broken wooden or steel shield's AC bonus drops to a +1 AC and the broken tower shield gives +1 AC, or +2 (standard cover) when taking cover.
With this method, shields can still be damaged and eventually destroyed, but it doesn't incentivize the player to only use shields on the weakest hits.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious, is your feeling based on internet theory or practical experience?
It is true that wooden shields and bucklers are very weak defensive tools, and that steel shields quickly fall off as the characters face higher and higher level threats. But Sturdy Shields are fairly good, and the first Sturdy Shield is a level 4 item - a dedicated Shield user ought to be having access to that item part way through their 3rd level.
The way shields are in the printed rules are GOOD because it gives an interesting choice to the person who is playing a character with Shield Block. What I've noticed in almost all of the homebrew "fixes" for shields is that they effectively write off the whole issue of having a shield get broken in a bad moment.
So.. just bear in mind that games are fun when players have meaningful choices. So many of these proposed shield "fixes" are designing out a meaningful choice and replacing them with "shields just always work and do the maximum of what they're capable of doing, always." Personally I don't like that. Choice is fun. Rules that are a no-brainer "do this" sort of thing are overpowered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only issue I see here is the fragility of certain magical shields that have powers that make you shield block to use them. These should be given sturdy shield stats comparable to their level (or the next lowest version of sturdy from them).
I would also agree that a "destroyed" magical shield should still keep it's magical properties for another 50% of it's HP allowing it to be repaired with the proper tools and skills and a broken or damaged magical shield should auto repair itself after a nights rest.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that a shield only ever gets destroyed intentionally on the part of the player, I don't really see that need. Rather, it's much like the "overcast" ability on wands - "do I need this shield block more than I need my shield?"
My play experience has been that shields are pretty good where they are. They would be terrible if you had to choose whether to block before you knew the damage, but you don't, so...
And Samurai, I know I'm calling you out a little bit here, but considering how strongly you are stating your opinion as fact... have you actually played the game yet, or are you still armchair house ruling?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to see advanced versions of the Spined Shield. This shield gives the character a great deal of flexibility. It can be used like a bow with limited ammunition or a better than sturdy shield for blocking high damage attacks (by breaking off multiple spikes from a single attack).
The regeneration of broken spikes is very appealing as it doesn't require the character to have any crafting skill to restore the spikes.
Imagine if there were higher level versions. They could:
1. Add more spikes
2. Increase the hp of each spike
3. Increase the spikes to +2 greater or +3 major striking shield spikes
4. Increase the hardness, BT and HP in a manner similar to sturdy shields
I think players would enjoy the advanced versions of Spined Shield. I hope we can see them in future books.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Samurai, I know I'm calling you out a little bit here, but considering how strongly you are stating your opinion as fact... have you actually played the game yet, or are you still armchair house ruling?
I finally found a PF2e group and played a few session so far. I'm not the GM, and our GM has decided to play RAW so far. My Elven Ranger/Wizard does not use a shield, and RAW I doubt I will until they release some official fix. If I ever GM and it's not yet fixed to my satisfaction, I'll fix it myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from some niche cases with specific shields that force you to shield block, I don't see an issue with the current shield stats.
Want something for blocking big hits, then use a sturdy shield, want to gain cool abilities and benefit from raise shield? use a different specific shield.
As you can make the specific shields out of special materials as well it gives a lot of wiggle room too as long as you can get the right special materials.
That is to say, I don't want a scenario where any specific magic shield that isn't based around durability can block more than once against a higher level threat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Sturdy Shields are fairly good, and the first Sturdy Shield is a level 4 item - a dedicated Shield user ought to be having access to that item part way through their 3rd level.
I'm going to keep saying this until people remember it.
Forge Warden
Just because Sturdy Shield is fine doesn't mean squat for literally every other shield.
Aside from some niche cases with specific shields that force you to shield block, I don't see an issue with the current shield stats.
Adamantine Shields are less durable (and rarer) than an equivalent level sturdy shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that a shield only ever gets destroyed intentionally on the part of the player, I don't really see that need. Rather, it's much like the "overcast" ability on wands - "do I need this shield block more than I need my shield?"
While I think this is generally true, there's a notable deficiency when it comes to magical shields that have block-based effects and high-grade special material shields, which are only different from lesser shields because of their blocking stats, but still tend to fall short of having the survivability necessary to be effective blocking devices.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from some niche cases with specific shields that force you to shield block, I don't see an issue with the current shield stats.
Want something for blocking big hits, then use a sturdy shield, want to gain cool abilities and benefit from raise shield? use a different specific shield.
As you can make the specific shields out of special materials as well it gives a lot of wiggle room too as long as you can get the right special materials.
That is to say, I don't want a scenario where any specific magic shield that isn't based around durability can block more than once against a higher level threat.
What about Druids, who can't use Sturdy Shields? Guess they are just screwed and can forget about using a class-given ability?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious, is your feeling based on internet theory or practical experience?
Both. We've played a number of games since August, only last night reaching 3rd level. None of my players are fighters, though - rogue, alchemist, wizard and druid. Only the druid even bothered to buy a shield, and he usually doesn't get round to equipping it. So I can't say I've had any direct experience with shields or medium-to-high-level play. So far, shields (on some of the NPC adversaries, at least) are working as intended.
But I can't remain ignorant of the theory crafters who quite rightly point out that PF2 monsters hit hard, and past 5th level or so, most critters will demolish a shield in a single blocked attack. That's wrong, IMHO.
I'm fully on board with the trope where the shield is rendered useless mid-battle. But the one-hit cardboard wonder doesn't swing it for me.
This said, I can't accept minimalist solutions like Samurai's one-hit-per-attack system. He's hawking it like it was the Brooklyn Bridge, but it basically makes shields indestructible, merely requiring a load of book-keeping so the shieldbearer can keep repairing it at the opportune moment.
One of the stated goals of PF2 design was to reduce or eliminate senseless book-keeping. Encumbrance has been simplified. Wands no longer have charges. The only thing you really need to track on a regular basis (besides your own hit points) is shield hit points and ammunition. So whatever solution we reach regarding shields should be as minimalist as possible, while retaining the shield-breaking trope that Paizo chose to balance the powerful DR effect of shield hardness.
Perhaps the only real problem here is with mid-level to high-level shield use. Low-level play with standard non-magical shields seems to work more or less as intended. This would seem to suggest that shield hit points needs to scale faster with level that it currently does.
Which brings me back to several of the above proposals:
- allow magical shields that have been "destroyed" to be repairable
- increase shield stats either by making all magic shields sturdy ones by default, or by making their listed hit points cumulative with a standard shield's hit points.
- change the rule on damaging shields so they suffer less for each hit (like half of the damage that surpasses their hardness).
Or, we do nothing, and magical shields become cardboard pretenses, and the shield block action becomes pointless after a few levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO 1 HP lost per breach is quite easy to track. Just make hash marks, like this: Hash marks That's easier than keeping a running damage total for your shield and your hit points..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So.. just bear in mind that games are fun when players have meaningful choices. So many of these proposed shield "fixes" are designing out a meaningful choice and replacing them with "shields just always work and do the maximum of what they're capable of doing, always." Personally I don't like that. Choice is fun. Rules that are a no-brainer "do this" sort of thing are overpowered.
But this is the real point. Apart from the Sturdy shield, none of the magic shields are worth blocking with because typical hits destroy them outright.
By being so brittle it has taken a feature out of the game. Reducing shield users you like to block, to the Sturdy Shield. Shield block should be a common option.
There is a place for a brittle shield with a cool power that you want to use but will never choose to block with. It just should not be the default. Magic shields should typically be good for a block or two. Some should take more, some less.
The fix is easy though - Paizo can just release some tougher magic shields in a future book. Which was going to happen anyway.
Samurai, the bigger problem isn't the accounting load, but the fact that at 1HP per shield block, regardless of the strength, size and power of the attack, shields will almost never give out in the middle of a fight. So a shield-bearing character will spend his time making hash marks and erasing them, never (or almost never) having to suffer the consequences of shield attrition. You're basically reverting to the playtest dent system, but with a really high dent threshold.
The accounting load or your system is too high for the meager benefit it provides. You might as well ignore shield hit points altogether, and just assume repairs are made between fights, like healer's tools and component pouches that never run out.
No, what I'd like to see is a modified shield paradigm where a mid to high-level character using a cool magic shield could hope to block attacks effectively three or four times per fight, but might also see his shield fold after one critical hit by badass enemy using a big weapon.
As things currently stand, a mid to high-level character will see his magical shield vaporized by most single average-damage attacks by on-level or level +1 foes. That's not how it should work either.
Can’t say i have play experience at mid range levels yet. We have a Redeemer Champion testing out shields and we’re keeping a close eye on how ‘fragile’ they may or may not be. Through over half of Plaguestone and almost all of AoA’s 1st book, the Tower Shield has only been destroyed once (not from combat), and has only been Broken by one boss from Plaguestone. Shields at the moment seem rather strong, and i plan to specifically keep an eye out for Forge Warden usage when it becomes available.
Adding Shield stats with Special Materials will put most other shields slightly above Sturdy Shields in Hardness while keeping Sturdy Shields HP much higher, giving players a reasonable option between the two choices if that’s the route a table wants to go down.
I feel Shields are actually in a pretty nice place right now, with the hope that they get additional support in the APG via more Hardness buffing feats and abilities.
As for Druids, Sturdy Shields can be made out of Dragonhide.
The hide and scales of a dragon can be used to Craft any item normally made of ordinary leather or hide. Dragonhide varies in color from blue to glittering gold, depending on the dragon it came from. Due to the scales’ resiliency, it can also be used to Craft armor usually made out of metal plates (such as a breastplate, half plate, and full plate), allowing such armor to be made without metal. Dragonhide objects are immune to one damage type, depending on the type of dragon.
Dragonhide Materials for Shields are already priced out in the book. Weather it’s fair to force Druids to need this option is another topic entirely, but Druids are able to use Sturdy Shields if they so desire.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind getting rid of destructible shielding completely. I offered 4 possible options and asked for votes on what people would prefer and got no votes or even discussion about the options I presented, or even options of their own.
Here was my post:
Ok, for those that agree easily destructible shields are a problem, what do you think is the best solution?
Choice A) My current house rules that shields suffer 1 point of HP damage after being pierced. Shields can still be destroyed, but it takes longer for most of them (though a Druid's wooden shields still are quite weak).
Choice B) Those character's with Shield Block are able to block the shield's Hardness in damage once per turn as a reaction. The shield suffers no damage for doing so, but once it blocks damage the character no longer receives his shield bonus to AC until his next round (ie: next time he raises his shield.) You can pretty much ignore the shield's HP and BT except if someone is trying to melt it down or destroy it using downtime. Using this solution effectively gives shield users damage resistance once per round using their reaction.
Choice C) Use choice B above, but turn it into a Saving Throw contest between the attack roll and the attempted Block. The Defender's Shield Block requires a d20 roll to succeed. This could mean "Make a Reflex save vs the attack's roll to hit you in order to interpose your shield in time to prevent some damage".
Crit fail = no damage blocked, shield no longer raised this round
Fail = Block 1/2 the shield's Hardness, shield no longer raised this round
Success = Block the shield's Hardness, shield no longer raised this round
Crit Success = Block the shield's Hardness and you do not lose your Shield bonus against further attacks this round (your shield remains raised).
Choice D) As C above, but instead of a Reflex save, make it some other roll. It could be an attack roll, it could be d20 + level + armored Dex bonus + Unarmored (or best) Armor Proficiency bonus, it could be using your Class DC, or some other suggestion (please describe what you are thinking of if you choose D)
Personally, if I had to choose myself, I think I like Choice C the best. It turns the Shield Block into an opposed roll mini-game (the attack total vs the blocker's Reflex save roll)
The way I play it is; shields when destroyed are still able to be repaired, it just takes more time and a bit of money. The game's magic item economy doesn't seem to assume shields are going to be destroyed so I don't feel like it would ever be a good idea for me to do that as a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One complaint in the other shield thread is that the current system encourages players to only block weak hits, but not strong ones, so they don't lose their shield.
On the one hand, I would personally encourage every Fighter to pick up either Duelling Parry, or Twin Parry and carrying a Main-gauche with them as a fallback option.
However, how about this little tweak to the Shield Block rule:
Shields block ALL incoming damage up to their combined hardness and HP, still getting broken and destroyed as normal.
So if you are about to take 8 HP of damage, the standard steel shield blocks them all, taking 3 damage itself in the process. Shield still works but has only 7 HP left before becoming broken. You took 3 less damage.
Attack comes in of 17 HP. If you block, your shield will be broken, but damn, 17 HP is a hit you don't want to take, right?
Critical hit of 30 HP is about to strike. If you block it, your shield is so much scrap metal, but it absorbs 25 of those 30 damage, leaving you to only suck up 5.
In practice, you still only have 1 chance to block an attack per round (usually), and you still want to preserve that for the Big Bruiser's attack, just taking the hits from the goon squad. That way, shields still should not be overpowered, but you DO have an incentive to block those large hits, since your shield actually *will* protect you from them.
Thoughts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a level 8 Shield Ally Champion with a sturdy shield (lvl 4, Hardness 10, 98 Hp) and I'm loving it.
Using a shield is engaging and I feel tanky as hell.
So I guess my feedback is at the very least for a mid level character very focused on shields it is a rewarding experience.
Oh, I've also put skill feats into blacksmithing and quick repair so I can fix my shield up between combats (3 actions fix 20hp)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a level 8 Shield Ally Champion with a sturdy shield (lvl 4, Hardness 10, 98 Hp) and I'm loving it.
Would you ever consider a different shield?
No?Then the fact that Sturdy Shield is fine doesn't address the problem that "shields that are not sturdy are not fine."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious, is your feeling based on internet theory or practical experience?
It is true that wooden shields and bucklers are very weak defensive tools, and that steel shields quickly fall off as the characters face higher and higher level threats. But Sturdy Shields are fairly good, and the first Sturdy Shield is a level 4 item - a dedicated Shield user ought to be having access to that item part way through their 3rd level.
The way shields are in the printed rules are GOOD because it gives an interesting choice to the person who is playing a character with Shield Block. What I've noticed in almost all of the homebrew "fixes" for shields is that they effectively write off the whole issue of having a shield get broken in a bad moment.
So.. just bear in mind that games are fun when players have meaningful choices. So many of these proposed shield "fixes" are designing out a meaningful choice and replacing them with "shields just always work and do the maximum of what they're capable of doing, always." Personally I don't like that. Choice is fun. Rules that are a no-brainer "do this" sort of thing are overpowered.
Until you buy your fancy and awesome shield at high level because it was an amazing choice to make and it gets completely pulverized by a normal attack.
If you're defending the current state of shields, I can only say you didn't look hard enough. There are some shields that have special abilities that only work on block that would be completely destroyed against the monsters of the level they are available.
There's something missing in the rules we're not getting or the math is still not right. Or maybe Paizo wants to treat all shields as consumable... In this case, they should severely cut down its costs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to block with shields. You don't even have to have the shield block feat to raise a shield. An ranger can do his two-weapon routine with a shield/boss and secondary agile weapon just fine.
This endless theorizing that all non-sturdy shields are problematic, is based on the false assumption that shield blocking is the only legitimate use of shields.
IMO the only problematic shields are the Forge Warden and Arrow Catching one because they do need to block to work. I don't think they should be quite as sturdy as the Sturdy Shield, but maybe a bit more. If they're intended to be once per encounter items, then maybe the solution is to decouple break threshold from having to be exactly at 50% of HP, and make the HP bigger while keeping the BT as-is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly a little bit baffled by someone saying "non-sturdy shields that rely on blocking can't keep up, their numbers suck"
and then a couple posts later someone replies "my [Character] loves their sturdy shield, shields are fine!"
over and over and over....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, how about this little tweak to the Shield Block rule:Shields block ALL incoming damage up to their combined hardness and HP, still getting broken and destroyed as normal.
So if you are about to take 8 HP of damage, the standard steel shield blocks them all, taking 3 damage itself in the process. Shield still works but has only 7 HP left before becoming broken. You took 3 less damage.
Attack comes in of 17 HP. If you block, your shield will be broken, but damn, 17 HP is a hit you don't want to take, right?
Critical hit of 30 HP is about to strike. If you block it, your shield is so much scrap metal, but it absorbs 25 of those 30 damage, leaving you to only suck up 5.
In practice, you still only have 1 chance to block an attack per round (usually), and you still want to preserve that for the Big Bruiser's attack, just taking the hits from the goon squad. That way, shields still should not be overpowered, but you DO have an incentive to block those large hits, since your shield actually *will* protect you from them.
Thoughts?
You would burn through regular shields very quickly, but even so, this would be an improvement over RAW. Part of what bugs me is the "Both the shield and the wielder take damage" bit, and exhausting the shield's HP before it begins to affect you would be an improvement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can not shield block and still get pretty nice benefits out of the magic shields - let’s look:
1) Arrow-catching Shield: ok, this one is clearly lackluster for an item level 11. If 1d8 arrows with hunt prey go towards the intended target, you can pull them to you and they lose hunt prey damage and you’ll likely absorb the arrow or take small shield damage. Not great, for sure
Monsters don't have effects like Hunt Prey.
And also you'll lose your shield. A level 9 monster has enough average damage to hit the BT of the arrow catching shield. Ok, ranged attacks have about half the flat damage (eg. 2d10+12 melee, but 2d10+6 ranged), so it'll be competitive a little longer, but we're still talking about taking 2 attacks (assuming the first roll is average or lower*) from a Trivial encounter to break the shield.
*Frost Giant is the outlier and almost has better ranged than melee. 2d8+12 melee, 2d10+9 ranged. 72% chance of rolling enough damage to break an arrow catching shield in one thrown rock, compared to a Firewyrm's 23% chance (with an 84% chance of rolling high enough to deal half the BT) on the low end of the spectrum.
2) Dragonslayers Shield: If you’re not blocking with it, you still get +2 AC and reflex saves (all AoE) and all dragon frightful presence saves. Shield block against a dragon of the type (or other element attack of that type) raises hardness to 18 which is significantly higher than a sturdy shield. It does what it says it does if you’re bringing it to a fight against the appropriate element. Not bad for level 9, could be made to order during planning for a pretty substantial advantage
Too bad you need like five of them to always have a shield that's better than Sturdy to deal with an elemental monster (also, most monsters aren't elemental). Is it good in its niche? Sure. But that's about it. It's barely better than a Sturdy Shield in a very narrow niche, that's...not great.
(Level 7 sturdy: Hardness 10, 80 HP. Level 10 sturdy: Hardness 13, 104 HP. Dragonslayer's: Hardness 8(18), 30 HP).
3) Floating shield: 1 action get free raise a shield for a minute and frees up a hand. You can’t shield block when it’s used for its intended purpose so it’s BT is moot anyway
Niche, but useful in that niche. Not being able to block anyway makes this one do its job competently. The shield for +2 AC when you don't have a free hand for a shield. No complaints.
4) Force Shield: like number 3, the primary ability is using it for the +2 AC and 5 physical resist for a minute. That’s 3 less than using a reaction for 1 block, but doesn’t take a reaction and applies to all incoming physical attacks. Clearly, shield block is not the primary function. Pretty solid for item for level 9 tbh
Activated ability is decent. But its not stellar. Remember that you could instead have a Sturdy Shield and get 10 hardness (double the activated ability's bonus) and save money. Doesn't scale.
5) Force Warden: Useful only against low level mooks. Lackluster, but it’s a free action 2d6 to anyone that can block. Could get more mileage as a divine ally
A LEVEL 10 item that's obsolete by level 7? "Could get more milate as a divine ally" applies to literally every shield, so that one piece of praise is moot.
There might be a reason I keep bringing it up.
6) Indestructible Shield: High item level, but clearly this shield is not the subject of these complaints. Super high item level though.
The level 17 Sturdy Shield has comparable hardness (1 point less) and 50% more HP.
Just FYI.
7) Lion’s Shield: as an item level 6, it’s not bad . The real advantage is the attack you get when you raise a shield. If you want to preserve this action economy, you’re not going to break it but it’s still there if you want to shrug a glancing blow. Free attack on raise a shield is pretty solid; bonus actions in the PF2E economy are really strong.
Sure, the ability is when you raise it, not when you block. No complaints. It just isn't suited for any class with Shield Block and the attack it makes is a melee attack, so...mixed messages here.
8) Reflecting Shield: clearly you’re not blocking with this, you’re turning spells with it.
It's also an 18th level item.
9) Spellguard Shield: same as 8, you’re in for the +2 saves. Another pretty solid shield just to raise - we can agree +2 save versus spells is pretty good at item level 6 right?
As a level 6 item, this one is alright. Good for rogues and other near-melee types, though a paladin, cleric, or fighter would probably still opt for a sturdy shield. But for an on-level item for those classes it wouldn't be bad. But again, its the scaling part of the equation (that as you go higher level the hardness and HP drop off compared to monster average damage) and this shield falls in under the "low level, things are ok" umbrella.
10) Spined Shield: so long as it has one spine it can attack, which isn’t strong. The shield can defend an alpha strike of up to 36 damage which is actually pretty nice - that would likely prevent death which is a worse outcome. Think of it as 5 talismans that reduce damage 6 each (but effectively 12 a pop because it combines hardness) and it really gives you some nice survivability. Can be good with a crafter and more useful if you get downtime. It’s item level 7 and it seems balanced around that level.
This is the only non-sturdy shield with decent damage mitigation potential. Note that hardness applies first, so you can actually block up to 42 damage (once) before the shield even loses any hit points. 54 damage from a single attack to reach BT.
11) Sturdy Shield: people seem to agree this is pretty balanced
TBH I think its Hardness values could go up a little faster, but compared to everything else, no complaints (if all other shields had Hardness values of an equal-level as-written Sturdy shield, they'd probably be OK, then the Sturdy Shield would just have more HP which still leaves it a niche, at which point you could evaluate adding an extra point of hardness or not).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also like to raise the point that shields *should* be used for at *least* a couple levels. Most look bad when you get them at the appropriate level, but look even worse as you level up in the next couple sessions and keep trying to use them.
Personally, I'm going to apply a blanket rule that no ostensibly sturdy object can be completely destroyed without a creature intentionally doing so, and such items are completely unusable at 0 hp, but can still be repaired.
I don't want any player with a shield block reaction to have to unrealistically face tank big hits because they want to spare their shield. Let it become unusable, fine, but don't set the player back 10k gold for using a shield like a sane person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly a little bit baffled by someone saying "non-sturdy shields that rely on blocking can't keep up, their numbers suck"
and then a couple posts later someone replies "my [Character] loves their sturdy shield, shields are fine!"
over and over and over....
As silly as the Sturdy Shield response was, i find it more baffling that there are some that still use Forge Warden to make a Strawman about Shields in general and then complain about it.
Over and over and over....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As silly as the Sturdy Shield response was, i find it more baffling that there are some that still use Forge Warden to make a Strawman about Shields in general and then complain about it.
Over and over and over....
Yeah, I don't buy that pointing out that "Sturdy Shields are good, there's not a huge problem here" is a silly argument.
Sturdy shields are the gold standard when you want a shield that can give you an AC boost and some damage resistance when you have the reaction available. And they work. That's not silly. The complaint is "shields (generally) suck." The response is "look at these shields that you may have overlooked, they do not suck, as verified by actual play experience."
But to each their own.
I agree with Draco18s in that I too am not very impressed by the Forge Warden. Though I do not think that ALL shields are problems because that one item isn't doing it for me.
I really like Liegence's post, when they go through all of the unique shields and break down their uses. It's a great broad view of shields and how they could be used, rather than drilling down on "but how well does it shield block?"
Start imagining all classes using shields, and think of shields in that way. The wizard has it the exact opposite and will be claiming that the sturdy shield sucks because it only gives her +2 AC, and clearly one of these fancy spell blocking shields is the gold standard.
The trend I'm seeing in these shield threads is some theorycrafting saying that shields are a huge problem and proposing a (typically) over-engineered homebrew solution, and then maybe a few people chiming in and saying "I dunno, I use them (or a player in the game I'm in uses them) and they work fine."
Play experience trumps theorycraft. Using a square peg for a square hole trumps using the square peg for a round hole.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, are we really just saying arrow catching shield and force warden are bad non-sturdy shields, and the dragonslayer is too niche? That doesn't sound like the same argument as "only sturdy shields are good"
To be fair, you didn't cover the "shields made out of other materials." All of which are terrible.
So sure, there's 5 good shields out of 18.
But even if we discount those 7 entirely and call it 5 out of 11, that's still "less than half" that are fine.
As silly as the Sturdy Shield response was, i find it more baffling that there are some that still use Forge Warden to make a Strawman about Shields in general and then complain about it.
I'll keep making the argument every time someone uses Sturdy Shield as evidence that Shields in general are fine.
Because (1) it exists and is clearly intended to be used to block attacks and (2) doesn't have the hardness and HP to actually survive that usage and (3) see all of the __material__ Shield entries.
Oh boy, I sure do wish I had an adamantine shield! With the same hardness as a Sturdy shield, available a level later, rarer, and with half the hit points! Oh boy, I sure do wish I had a dragonhide shield, available one level lower than the dragonslayer shield, but with half the hardness and half the HP! Oh boy, I sure do wish I had an oricalchum shield, with three-quarters the hardness, 40% the HP than an equivalent level sturdy shield all for the wonderful benefit that "the first time each day it would be destroyed, it isn't"! You know what also wouldn't be destroyed and isn't after taking that much damage? A sturdy shield.
Playing a level 8 Shield Ally Champion with a sturdy shield (lvl 4, Hardness 10, 98 Hp) and I'm loving it.Would you ever consider a different shield?
No?
Then the fact that Sturdy Shield is fine doesn't address the problem that "shields that are not sturdy are not fine."
Yes.
Looking to pick up a Spellguard Shield when I can. Possibly also a Force Shield. I wouldn't wield Forge Warden for religious reasons, but I think it is interesting.
I like that I can have choices for different circumstances. I also like that those choices have consequences.
The biggest issues I have with shields is that the DM role plays smart enemies to not attack me so I don't get to use it as much. The more choice and flexibility I have with my "load out" the better.
Hell, if it feels like a fight isn't super threatening where we just want to kill stuff as quick as possible I sometimes don't equip my shield and swing a two-hander and rely upon lay on hands and medicine healing. Choices!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're making the argument that Sturdy Shields are the best at shield blocking, which is generally what these posts boil down to - yes, that's what they do best. If they didn't, then wouldn't they be obsolete?
"If I have three, I have three. If I have two, I have two, if I have one, then I have none."
If there's one shield that's viable for Shield Block, then there are no choices to be made.
If you're making the argument that Sturdy Shields are the best at shield blocking, which is generally what these posts boil down to - yes, that's what they do best. If they didn't, then wouldn't they be obsolete?"If I have three, I have three. If I have two, I have two, if I have one, then I have none."
If there's one shield that's viable for Shield Block, then there are no choices to be made.
This for me is the issue: you can debate over the relative merits of shields used for JUST for AC but there really isn't a debate over blocking: there IS no choice and if you aren't using a study shield, you're going to feel it as most other shields are one use items when used to block.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
there IS no choice and if you aren't using a study shield, you're going to feel it as most other shields are one use items when used to block.
Including the ones meant for blocking.
I would like to see advanced versions of the Spined Shield. This shield gives the character a great deal of flexibility. It can be used like a bow with limited ammunition or a better than sturdy shield for blocking high damage attacks (by breaking off multiple spikes from a single attack).
The regeneration of broken spikes is very appealing as it doesn't require the character to have any crafting skill to restore the spikes.
Imagine if there were higher level versions. They could:
1. Add more spikes
2. Increase the hp of each spike
3. Increase the spikes to +2 greater or +3 major striking shield spikes
4. Increase the hardness, BT and HP in a manner similar to sturdy shieldsI think players would enjoy the advanced versions of Spined Shield. I hope we can see them in future books.
I may actually homebrew some higher level versions. The fighter in my party LOVES her spined shield.
Shields are in a perfect place. Paizo are geniuses for their design, and any anomalies that people perceive are actually them working as intended.
Unless Paizo publish a shield change. Then shields were always obviously broken, and Paizo are geniuses for creating a fix that was direly needed.
You joke, but I have actually in all seriousness had this reaction before.
Sometimes something bugs me in a way that I don't notice until it is changed. It's hard to see how something can be improved, until you see the improvement.
I think that's a big part of why PF2e looked so awkward to me, just reading to rules, but then feels amazing in actual play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, just talking about magic shields here.
Kinda convenient to just say "oh that doesn't count" when someone brings up something that doesn't match your narrative. Not sure that's how this works though.
Also kind of misses the point. Leveled special material shields only differentiate themselves from lower level versions of the same item by their higher stats as blocking shields, yet simultaneously don't function properly as blocking shields because their numbers are generally too low.
Dismissing them as easier to obtain isn't really accurate either. Adamantine and Orichalcum are Uncommon and Rare respectively, making them less reliable and available than sturdy shields.
As silly as the Sturdy Shield response was, i find it more baffling that there are some that still use Forge Warden to make a Strawman about Shields in general and then complain about it.I'll keep making the argument every time someone uses Sturdy Shield as evidence that Shields in general are fine.
Arguing a bad example with a bad example just gives you. . . two bad examples and nothing good.
Because (1) it exists and is clearly intended to be used to block attacks and (2) doesn't have the hardness and HP to actually survive that usage and (3) see all of the __material__ Shield entries.
*Looks at all the __material__Shield entries*
Yes, it’s almost like you can make a Forge Warden out of different and more durable materials.
Yes, it’s almost like you can make a Forge Warden out of different and more durable materials.
I think you overstate "can". You MIGHT be able to depending on DM fiat as every special material except silver/cold iron is uncommon+ with no entry point in place. If you happen to trip over a special material shield, sure enchant away but I find it hard to agree that that in any way saves a Forge Warden from sucking a whole lot in general.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't buy that pointing out that "Sturdy Shields are good, there's not a huge problem here" is a silly argument.
It's pretty simple: someone is pointing out that a specific type of shield is bad. Someone else comes in and shouts "but sturdy shields aren't!" Yeah, sure. That's all well and good, but sturdy shields existing doesn't suddenly make an item that's bad less bad.
It's basically a non-sequitur, at best.
Yes, it’s almost like you can make a Forge Warden out of different and more durable materials.
Can you? There aren't really any provisions in the rules for crafting specific magic shields (or specific items in general) out of special materials. Some specific shields call out explicitly the material they're made out of, which makes it seem a little dubious that you're intended to be able to craft them out of whatever you want.
Even if you could, it makes the item significantly more expensive and doesn't actually make them all that much more durable unless you're using adamantine specifically.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We played PF2 again today, and shields came up in the game for the first time. The GM didn't know the RAW, and when he found out what they are, he said, I quote "That's dumb. Ok, first house rule of the game so far!"" He then changed it to how he's thought shields worked: Reduce the damage by Hardness and then divide the remaining damage half and half between the shield and the target. For instance, in-game example: Player was hit for 7 damage. She blocked with her wooden shield, reducing it to 4 damage, and that was then split 2 to the player, 2 to the shield.
That rule actually works pretty well IMO. Even a normal wooden shield lasted though the battle ok. It was damaged, but wasn't destroyed by the end of the battle as it would have been using RAW.