| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it’s almost like you can make a Forge Warden out of different and more durable materials.
Except that all of the special materials are garbage except adamantine in the specific dimension that we care about here. Silver is actually worse than Steel when it comes to hardness and HP (not an unexpected property, seeing as silver is very ductile) and cold iron isn't much better.
And the bonus property silver shields get is hardly worth considering for the lower durability. "Silver/Cold iron shields don’t typically have an additional effect, though when used for a shield bash, they are silver/cold iron weapons."
Mithril isn't really an improvement, for all its rarity. Its lighter (as one would expect) and counts as silver when used as shield bash and has the durability of cold iron (and darkwood). Hell, we might as well call mithril "silver-plated darkwood" at this point.
more durable materials.
So sure. If such materials freaking exist, let me know.
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.
The answer you’re looking for is, ‘yes, you can.’
Shields made of precious materials are more expensive and have different durabilities. You can make bucklers and most shields out of any of these precious materials, but only darkwood can be used to make tower shields.
Since it gives us a vague limitation with the terminology ‘most shields’ we must refer to the Materials section:
Most materials are metals; they can be used to make metal weapons and armor. The GM is the final arbiter of what items can be made using a material. An item can be made with no more than one precious material, and only an expert in Crafting can create it. Some rare and exotic materials require master or even legendary proficiency.
Which means the only Shields this limitation would include, for the CRB, would be the Indestructible and Reflecting Shields. Dragonslayer Shield might fall into this category, but it doesn’t use enough dragonhide to be considered a replacement material; thus why the description calls it a Steel Shield and not a Dragonhide Shield.
@Greystone - There is no overstatement in saying you can craft it with more durable materials at all. I will say it’s a fair critique to say with the uncommon tag a player will be hard pressed to expect said material at the level they may need it, depending on GM. I also made mention that Druids seem to find the roughest end of this since they can only use Darkwood and Dragonhide Shield materials because of their Anathema. I’ve also said i would like to see more Feats and Abilities that boost Hardness similar to the handful that we currently have available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also made mention that Druids seem to find the roughest end of this since they can only use Darkwood and Dragonhide Shield materials because of their Anathema. I’ve also said i would like to see more Feats and Abilities that boost Hardness similar to the handful that we currently have available.
A dragonslayer’s shield is a steel shield covered with dragonhide...
Unclear if this is a valid choice for druids. The buckler doesn't say what it's made out of. It has lower durability than darkwood, so...
| 1 person 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.
That's... actually a pretty reasonable houserule, for groups that want shields to be more durable without completely writing off worrying about durability. It makes shields a fair bit stronger - you can negate the majority of a pretty nasty blow with one, suddenly - so that's a thing to think about. Your GM might find that it makes sense to lower the Hardness of shields a bit to compensate.
I also made mention that Druids seem to find the roughest end of this since they can only use Darkwood and Dragonhide Shield materials because of their Anathema. I’ve also said i would like to see more Feats and Abilities that boost Hardness similar to the handful that we currently have available.A dragonslayer’s shield is a steel shield covered with dragonhide...Unclear if this is a valid choice for druids. The buckler doesn't say what it's made out of. It has lower durability than darkwood, so...
I agree, Dragonslayer could use better wording. When looking at the crafting requirements it’s not using enough material to be considered full Dragonhide; but since it also includes Dragonhide in the crafting process i can see people ruling that using other materials would conflict with the Precious Materials rule of only one per item. The safest bet is probably add the remaining Dragonhide Material and call it a Dragonhide Dragonslayer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can make bucklers and most shields out of any of these precious materials
It doesn't say magic or specific shields, so we have no way to know if it means just non-magic shields or includes magic/specific ones. Note the part you didn't bold "but only darkwood can be used to make tower shields": this makes it seem like it's talking about shield types specifically instead of making a statement on magic/specific items.
An item can be made with no more than one precious material
This in no way clarifies things as it too could be talking about 100% mundane items: nothing indicates specific items are being talked about.
@Greystone - There is no overstatement in saying you can craft it with more durable materials at all.
Can is still an overstatement IMO: you might be able to is you can find the material but that isn't guaranteed. It's more a 'might' be able to. Add to that that it's not even clear if magic or specific items are possible with special materials: specific shields indicate materials needed in their construction. For instance, we have no way of knowing if a Lion's Shield NEEDS to be a steel shield or not for that specific enchantment. This is especially true as we have non-standard hp and hardness with specific shields and have no rules on how to merge them with special materials hp and hardness: do you take the highest? Remove the added bonuses from given material of the special shield and add that bonus to the special material? So even if we can, how does it work? So it's far too complicated for a simple "can".
You can make bucklers and most shields out of any of these precious materialsIt doesn't say magic or specific shields, so we have no way to know if it means just non-magic shields or includes magic/specific ones. Note the part you didn't bold "but only darkwood can be used to make tower shields": this makes it seem like it's talking about shield types specifically instead of making a statement on magic/specific items.
An item can be made with no more than one precious materialThis in no way clarifies things as it too could be talking about 100% mundane items: nothing indicates specific items are being talked about.
That’s not a very convincing interpretation personally. Weapons and Armor have the exact same excerpt before it goes on to list the Specific Magical ones. In the Materials section it also has the section called, ‘Crafting with Precious Materials’(CRB pg 578). So the book clearly expects the player to craft magical items out of precious materials. The Precious materials, being placed before the Magical Equipment of their respective section, would imply use in this regard.
@Greystone - There is no overstatement in saying you can craft it with more durable materials at all.Can is still an overstatement IMO: you might be able to is you can find the material but that isn't guaranteed. It's more a 'might' be able to. Add to that that it's not even clear if magic or specific items are possible with special materials: specific shields indicate materials needed in their construction. For instance, we have no way of knowing if a Lion's Shield NEEDS to be a steel shield or not for that specific enchantment. This is especially true as we have non-standard hp and hardness with specific shields and have no rules on how to merge them with special materials hp and hardness: do you take the highest? Remove the added bonuses from given material of the special shield and add that bonus to the special material? So even if we can, how does it work? So it's far too complicated for a simple "can".
The rarity system has two purposes: to convey how common or rare certain spells, creatures, or items are in the game world, and to give you an easy tool to control the complexity of your game. Uncommon and rare options aren’t more powerful than other options of their level, but they introduce complications for certain types of stories, or are less common in the world. For instance, it might be more challenging to run a mystery adventure when a player can cast an uncommon spell such as detect evil.
At the start of the campaign, communicate your preferred expectations on rarity to the players. Unless you decide otherwise, the players can choose from any common options they qualify for, plus any uncommon options granted by their character choices—primarily their ancestry and class. By default, a character who tries hard enough might eventually find an uncommon option, whereas a rare option is always a special reward. Beyond that baseline, you can grant access as freely as you want; some GMs open up all uncommon and rare options universally. If you’re not sure, just look over any uncommon or rare elements before you include them as rewards or otherwise allow a player to acquire them.
While i agree with you that pointing to Adamantine as the Material to go for every time would be somewhat reductionist of myself; saying that your sole dependency of coming across it is entirely dependent on the whims of your GM is just as reductionist of a side to stand on. The book brings up how Uncommon should be used, and it can be somewhat expected for a player to ask about their view on it in advanced. You do have a point when pointing out Rarity, but it’s not an overstatement on my part via the default expectations of the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While i agree with you that pointing to Adamantine as the Material to go for every time would be somewhat reductionist of myself; saying that your sole dependency of coming across it is entirely dependent on the whims of your GM is just as reductionist of a side to stand on. The book brings up how Uncommon should be used, and it can be somewhat expected for a player to ask about their view on it in advanced. You do have a point when pointing out Rarity, but it’s not an overstatement on my part via the default expectations of the book.
Adamantine is rare, not uncommon, and by default rare is non-existent.
While i agree with you that pointing to Adamantine as the Material to go for every time would be somewhat reductionist of myself; saying that your sole dependency of coming across it is entirely dependent on the whims of your GM is just as reductionist of a side to stand on. The book brings up how Uncommon should be used, and it can be somewhat expected for a player to ask about their view on it in advanced. You do have a point when pointing out Rarity, but it’s not an overstatement on my part via the default expectations of the book.Adamantine is rare, not uncommon, and by default rare is non-existent.
Would you be able to source where it says Adamantine is Rare? I just double checked my CRB and did a search on AoN, and Adamantine comes up as Uncommon, not Rare. The only Adamantine item that’s Rare being the Indestructible Shield itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you be able to source where it says Adamantine is Rare? I just double checked my CRB and did a search on AoN, and Adamantine comes up as Uncommon, not Rare. The only Adamantine item that’s Rare being the Indestructible Shield itself.
Misremembered. My apologies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Wheldrake - Your Shield Runes idea seemed a little wonky so i tweaked the numbers and staggered it through the levels; but it basically acts as an extension to how Shield stats are currently calculated. I turned it into an item bonus so it doesn’t interfere with Emblazoned Armament and acts like other Runes. . . mostly that is. . .
Usage Etched onto a Shield
____________________________
Stalwart runes imbue shields with additional protective magic. This grants the shield a +1 item bonus to Hardness, a +4 item bonus to HP and a +2 item bonus to BP.
You can upgrade the stalwart rune already etched on a Shield to a stronger version, increasing the values of the existing rune to those of the new rune. You must have the formula of the stronger rune to do so,
____________________________
Minor - Level 3
+1 Hardness +4 HP +2 BP
Lesser - Level 7
+2 Hardness +8 HP +4 BP
Moderate - Level 11
+3 Hardness +12 HP +6 BP
Greater - Level 15
+4 Hardness +16 HP +8 BP
Major - Level 19
+5 Hardness +20 HP +10 BP
I did allow it to go up to +5, which is unusual for Runes, or Bonuses in general this edition. If you feel they’re still to weak you can multiply the numbers by 2 or 3. I couldn’t think up how to price them though.
Would you be able to source where it says Adamantine is Rare? I just double checked my CRB and did a search on AoN, and Adamantine comes up as Uncommon, not Rare. The only Adamantine item that’s Rare being the Indestructible Shield itself.Misremembered. My apologies.
No problem really, it happens.
So the book clearly expects the player to craft magical items out of precious materials. The Precious materials, being placed before the Magical Equipment of their respective section, would imply use in this regard.
It expects items to be made out of them: that doesn't mean that PLAYERS are meant to make them. We have specific/mundane items made out if those items by default and NO rules on how to make specific item with alternate materials so I'm afraid I don't see the inference you're seeing. How does a PC figure out the hardness and HO of an adamantine forge warden? The fact that they can't IMO implies more that they aren't meant to than anything that might make me lean the other way.
The book brings up how Uncommon should be used, and it can be somewhat expected for a player to ask about their view on it in advanced. You do have a point when pointing out Rarity, but it’s not an overstatement on my part via the default expectations of the book.
Let me quote what you quoted and BOLDED: "By default, a character who tries hard enough might eventually find an uncommon option". Note what I bolded: "MIGHT". The default expectation of the game isn't that a PC is 100% guaranteed to find ANY uncommon+ item, hence the might and that's all I've been saying. As a less than 100% chance of it being available, it's not a reason to have crappy hardness/hp on items with the expectation of materials to overcome it's vulnerabilities. You just can't assume you'll find an adamantine shield to make your forge warden an actual usable shield: you MIGHT be able to, but that's been my point.
So the book clearly expects the player to craft magical items out of precious materials. The Precious materials, being placed before the Magical Equipment of their respective section, would imply use in this regard.It expects items to be made out of them: that doesn't mean that PLAYERS are meant to make them. We have specific/mundane items made out if those items by default and NO rules on how to make specific item with alternate materials so I'm afraid I don't see the inference you're seeing. How does a PC figure out the hardness and HO of an adamantine forge warden? The fact that they can't IMO implies more that they aren't meant to than anything that might make me lean the other way.
No rules on this? Let’s see if that’s actually true.
An item’s Hardness, Hit Points, and Broken Threshold usually depend on the material the item is made of. This information appears on page 577.
So the stats of a Shield depends on what materials it’s made out of? Good thing we have a list of different material shields and their stats.
Materials with the precious trait can be SUBSTITUTED FOR THE BASE MATERIALS. For example, a hammer’s head could be made of adamantine instead of iron. Items made of a precious material cost more than typical items; not only does precious material cost more, but the crafter must invest more time working with it. In addition, more powerful items require precious materials of greater purity.
You substitute the material; as in full on replace the old stats with the ones of the Precious Material. So we found rules for that.
Only an expert crafter can create a low-grade item, only a master can create a standard-grade item, and only a legendary crafter can create a high-grade item. In addition, to Craft with a precious material, your character level must be equal to or greater than that of the material.
Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items can be used to create magic items of up to 15th level and can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items use the purest form of the precious material, and can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes. Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.
When you Craft an item that incorporates a precious material, your initial raw materials for the item must include that material; at least 10% of the investment must be of the material for low-grade, at least 25% for standard-grade, and all of it for high-grade. For instance, a low-grade silver object of 1 Bulk costs 20 gp. Of the 10 gp of raw materials you provide when you start to Craft the item, at least 1 gp must be silver. The raw materials you spend to complete the item don’t have to consist of the precious material, though the GM might rule otherwise in certain cases.
After creating an item with a precious material, you can use Craft to improve its grade, paying the Price difference and providing a sufficient amount of the precious material.
The parts that are in bold are talking to the player exclusively here, so much so that it refers to the GM separately, so this section is obviously intended for players more than it is GMs. This part is rich with rules for the player to use on crafting with different materials.
So i guess we found plenty of those elusive rules you said didn’t exist.
The book brings up how Uncommon should be used, and it can be somewhat expected for a player to ask about their view on it in advanced. You do have a point when pointing out Rarity, but it’s not an overstatement on my part via the default expectations of the book.Let me quote what you quoted and BOLDED: "By default, a character who tries hard enough might eventually find an uncommon option". Note what I bolded: "MIGHT". The default expectation of the game isn't that a PC is 100% guaranteed to find ANY uncommon+ item, hence the might and that's all I've been saying. As a less than 100% chance of it being available, it's not a reason to have crappy hardness/hp on items with the expectation of materials to overcome it's vulnerabilities. You just can't assume you'll find an adamantine shield to make your forge warden an actual usable shield: you MIGHT be able to, but that's been my point.
I’m pretty sure i answered you on this part.
While i agree with you that pointing to Adamantine as the Material to go for every time would be somewhat reductionist of myself;
That’s right, i actually agreed with you that pointing to uncommon materials was being somewhat dismissive on my part.
Though let’s assume we can only use Common Materials like Cold Iron and see what we can do with a Forge Warden.
Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden
7H 28HP 14BP
Pretty basic and lackluster, but we have Feats and Features that can boost it; Divine Ally, Everstand Stance, Emblazon Armament; to where it now looks like this:
Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden
12H 42HP 21BP
Obviously this doesn’t solve the overall issue of choice since you have to specifically build for this outcome; but with more support and features this can be a more regular sight among Shields all around. This is where my critique for shields is for the time being, and it give a more focused look on where additional support would be welcomed.
Meanwhile, threads like these tend to be up in arms that shields are all around bad, and must be errata’d, or redesigned, or some other such rabble. Personally i’m still on the side that feels shields may still be weak right now, and want to see if they actually are and where they could use additional support rather than just rattle off how bad they are and criticize anyone that may not agree that Shield Warden deserves to be in a burning dumpster along with the Precious Material Shields in the same section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's... actually a pretty reasonable houserule, for groups that want shields to be more durable without completely writing off worrying about durability. It makes shields a fair bit stronger - you can negate the majority of a pretty nasty blow with one, suddenly - so that's a thing to think about. Your GM might find that it makes sense to lower the Hardness of shields a bit to compensate.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.
Agreed, that sounds very reasonable actually. It actually does incentivize people to sacrifice some shield durability for HP, and I am very confident it does not make shields OP. Also it doesn't go so far as turning shield health into a non-issue.
Though let’s assume we can only use Common Materials like Cold Iron and see what we can do with a Forge Warden.
Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden
7H 28HP 14BPPretty basic and lackluster, but we have Feats and Features that can boost it; Divine Ally, Everstand Stance, Emblazon Armament; to where it now looks like this:
Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden
12H 42HP 21BP
Ok, so, (1) cold iron is a worse material than steel (sure, you bumped up to "standard grade" but we don't have "standard grade steel" to compare with), so why bother and (2) adding Divine Ally, Everstand Stance, and Emblazon Armament to it to show it being useful is a red herring: we can add those feats to the regular version anyway and (3) not everyone is a Paladin.
And oh yeah, (4) how the **** did you even arrive at those stats? 7 hardness? Forge Warden has +1 hardness and +4 HP compared to a steel shield, yet you seem to have completely disregarded that modifier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And oh yeah, (4) how the **** did you even arrive at those stats? 7 hardness? Forge Warden has +1 hardness and +4 HP compared to a steel shield, yet you seem to have completely disregarded that modifier.
Yes he made a huge post about how it was super easy to use special materials in specific shields just to sidestep my questions on this ignoring the point 100%. Seems kind of bad faith/disingenuous to do so when I bring up the specific issue:
This is especially true as we have non-standard hp and hardness with specific shields and have no rules on how to merge them with special materials hp and hardness: do you take the highest? Remove the added bonuses from given material of the special shield and add that bonus to the special material? So even if we can, how does it work? So it's far too complicated for a simple "can".
All I get is this instead...
So i guess we found plenty of those elusive rules you said didn’t exist.
WE clearly have a different definition of "we" as I haven't found anything...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though let’s assume we can only use Common Materials like Cold Iron and see what we can do with a Forge Warden.
Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden
7H 28HP 14BPPretty basic and lackluster, but we have Feats and Features that can boost it; Divine Ally, Everstand Stance, Emblazon Armament; to where it now looks like this:
Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden
12H 42HP 21BPOk, so, (1) cold iron is a worse material than steel (sure, you bumped up to "standard grade" but we don't have "standard grade steel" to compare with), so why bother and (2) adding Divine Ally, Everstand Stance, and Emblazon Armament to it to show it being useful is a red herring: we can add those feats to the regular version anyway and (3) not everyone is a Paladin.
And oh yeah, (4) how the **** did you even arrive at those stats? 7 hardness? Forge Warden has +1 hardness and +4 HP compared to a steel shield, yet you seem to have completely disregarded that modifier.
I never understand why there's no high grade stell or wood shields?
All other materials have it, even Silver and Dark Wood has a high grade. Why there's no single steel/wood high grade shields?
Though let’s assume we can only use Common Materials like Cold Iron and see what we can do with a Forge Warden.
Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden
7H 28HP 14BPPretty basic and lackluster, but we have Feats and Features that can boost it; Divine Ally, Everstand Stance, Emblazon Armament; to where it now looks like this:
Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden
12H 42HP 21BPOk, so, (1) cold iron is a worse material than steel (sure, you bumped up to "standard grade" but we don't have "standard grade steel" to compare with), so why bother and (2) adding Divine Ally, Everstand Stance, and Emblazon Armament to it to show it being useful is a red herring: we can add those feats to the regular version anyway and (3) not everyone is a Paladin.
And oh yeah, (4) how the **** did you even arrive at those stats? 7 hardness? Forge Warden has +1 hardness and +4 HP compared to a steel shield, yet you seem to have completely disregarded that modifier.
Type standard-grade cold iron shield; Level 7; Price 340 gp;
Bulk 1; Craft Requirements cold iron worth at least 425 sp The shield has Hardness 7, HP 28, and BT 14.
1 & 4) It’s literally in the section before the magic shields. Precious Materials on page 577 states that you use the materials as a replacement, thus replacing the stats. A Standard-Grade Cold Iron Shield has 7 hardness. Not really any guess work involved with it.
2 & 3)
Obviously this doesn’t solve the overall issue of choice since you have to specifically build for this outcome;
___________________________________
Yes he made a huge post about how it was super easy to use special materials in specific shields just to sidestep my questions on this ignoring the point 100%. Seems kind of bad faith/disingenuous to do so when I bring up the specific issue:
This is especially true as we have non-standard hp and hardness with specific shields and have no rules on how to merge them with special materials hp and hardness: do you take the highest? Remove the added bonuses from given material of the special shield and add that bonus to the special material? So even if we can, how does it work? So it's far too complicated for a simple "can".All I get is this instead...
So i guess we found plenty of those elusive rules you said didn’t exist.WE clearly have a different definition of "we" as I haven't found anything...
Materials with the precious trait can be SUBSTITUTED FOR THE BASE MATERIALS. For example, a hammer’s head could be made of adamantine instead of iron. Items made of a precious material cost more than typical items; not only does precious material cost more, but the crafter must invest more time working with it. In addition, more powerful items require precious materials of greater purity.
I’m all ears to hear how this doesn’t answer how it works plain as day unless you want to nit-pick on the details of the elusive Steel and Wood materials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knowing that one value gets substituted for another doesn't reveal the whole equation. Is the initial value added to? Increased by 50%? Doubled?
If a shield's mundane hardness is 5 and a magic version of it is hardness 10, I don't know that the process is "X + 5" or "2X". Subbing in a new material with hardness 15 yields very different results depending on how it's supposed to work; i.e., 20 =/= 30.
So, not plain as day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again it kind of feels like wishful thinking. The rules quote by Pumpkinhead talk a lot about crafting items in general out of specific materials, but not a lot about modifying specific magic items.
The fact that the people arguing over this can't even agree on the stats of the completed item I think is pretty telling about just how undefined this supposedly well defined feature is.
A GM might allow it, but it seems as up in the air as any other form of custom magic item. Not at all a reliable assumption.
|
I'm thinking more and more that we are going to see a few new things in the Advanced Players Guide to help this out in the form of:
At least 1 new General Feat (Level 4+) that improves the durability of a Shield used with the Shield Block Reaction. It may be as simple as "Double the Hardness of any Shield you use with the Shield Block Reaction" or something to that effect.
Magical Shield Runes which improve Shield HP and/or Hardness
A Spell that adds Temporary HP to Shields for 1 minute scaling with heightening. +10 HP base +1 Heightened add an additional 5 Temporary HP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking more and more that we are going to see a few new things in the Advanced Players Guide to help this out in the form of:
At least 1 new General Feat (Level 4+) that improves the durability of a Shield used with the Shield Block Reaction. It may be as simple as "Double the Hardness of any Shield you use with the Shield Block Reaction" or something to that effect.
Magical Shield Runes which improve Shield HP and/or Hardness
A Spell that adds Temporary HP to Shields for 1 minute scaling with heightening. +10 HP base +1 Heightened add an additional 5 Temporary HP.
Also known as patchwork for a broken foundation.
Shield runes should be adding actual options, not fixing broken math.
A sturdy shield should be above other shields, but that doesn't mean that non-sturdy shields should become dust.
For me, a good rule of thumb would be for every hit a normal shield would take a sturdy shield should take 2 or more. This way, sturdy shields are excellent at what they do, but non-sturdy shields have the ability to block at least once without being destroyed (being broken is fine) and as a trade-off have their cool abilities.
Or just divide all the shield prices by X amount and treat them as consumables and get it over with.
|
|
Yeah, generally speaking, I believe it's arrogant to think that there is any consensus on the matter since most often the only thing you'll hear in a public forum will be the loudest and angriest voices. I honestly don't think there is anything broken with them at all right now, it's not a patch, it's a suite of new options to improve Shields.
Additional rules support for letting characters get access to better functions for the use of or improvement of their shields isn't there to "fix" Shields, they work just fine as-is. They're intended to soak up damage and essentially work like consumables that need an action spent on them to gain extra HP, Damage Resistance, and AC.
Paizo devs made that pretty clear in the multiple areas they've opened up about the topic before, they're MEANT to take damage and be in jeopardy of breaking, that's the desired outcome of risk/reward that they are setup with. People want them to be better, that's totally fair, but with improvement I think should come at a cost, be it through Feat selection, Spell Prep, or Runes. People shouldn't want "something for nothing" and asking to buff base shields is doing exactly that when the items already provide ample bonuses and reasons to use them even considering that they can break, intentional design.
So... just to use an actual encounter that came up recently, the party was fighting a Nessian Warhound, and the party fighter has a Spined Shield.
The Spined Shield is a level 7 item. It has 6 hardness and 24 hp. The Nessian Warhound, a level 9 creature, hits for an average of 25 damage..
Ignore that in the actual fight the warhound only hit her once; lets assume it hits her repeatedly. On average, the warhound gets 19 damage through the shield's hardness. That means the first hit breaks 3 spines and deals 1 damage to the shield; the second hit breaks 2 spines and deals 7 damage to the shield, and the third hit most likely destroys the shield.
That definitely seems like you can use the shield to block "at least once without being destroyed", and that's against a higher level, melee-focused creature...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People shouldn't want "something for nothing" and asking to buff base shields is doing exactly that when the items already provide ample bonuses and reasons to use them even considering that they can break, intentional design.
This assumes the existing balance is already perfect, which is a little bit of a dubious assertion at the best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 & 4) It’s literally in the section before the magic shields. Precious Materials on page 577 states that you use the materials as a replacement, thus replacing the stats. A Standard-Grade Cold Iron Shield has 7 hardness. Not really any guess work involved with it.
Type standard-grade cold iron shield; Level 7; Price 340 gp;
Bulk 1; Craft Requirements cold iron worth at least 425 sp The shield has Hardness 7, HP 28, and BT 14.
Wow, just wow. You completely ignored my question. Why does a stock Forge Warden have +1 hardness compared to a steel shield and how does that translate to making it out of cold iron?
Straw Man, much?
So... just to use an actual encounter that came up recently, the party was fighting a Nessian Warhound, and the party fighter has a Spined Shield.
The spined shield is a bit of an outlier in terms of durability (it should be noted, however, that the player also took 38 damage during those two hits, as well) having an effective 30 extra HP above its stated amount. You also can't repair this HP and have to wait until the next day to get it back. Plus the primary benefit (making an attack with the spines) is just laughably weak.
If you try the same trick with a Forge Warden it basically evaporates. A dragonhide shield would've been destroyed in the first hit, as well as several other shields (admittedly some aren't meant for blocking attacks) would also break pretty much immediately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m all ears to hear how this doesn’t answer how it works plain as day unless you want to nit-pick on the details of the elusive Steel and Wood materials.
I explain but I suspect you'd just ignore the question asked multiple times by more than one person: how do you take into affect the different hardness and hp totals of specific shields different from the base materials hardness and hp involved when you change the base materials. Continually pointing to the replaced materials IS ignoring the question, not answering it: pointing out a Standard-Grade Cold Iron Shield's hardness is totally useless in figuring out a Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden...
And again, we don't know is specific shields CAN use other materials. The examples are ALL of normal items, not pre-made specific items. NO examples explain how to substitute the based but enhanced base material for the unenhanced precious material so we don't know if this is an oversight or because it can't be done.
Steel Shield 5 hardness, 20 hp
Forge Warden 6 hardness, 24 hp
Both are steel... so SOMETHING changed the numbers: if it's the enchantments on the shield would it alter the precious material stats? We don't know so I can't understand your saying it's all solved.
That's... actually a pretty reasonable houserule, for groups that want shields to be more durable without completely writing off worrying about durability. It makes shields a fair bit stronger - you can negate the majority of a pretty nasty blow with one, suddenly - so that's a thing to think about. Your GM might find that it makes sense to lower the Hardness of shields a bit to compensate.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.
Until there's official errata otherwise, I'll probably start running it this way. No one in my sessions have Shield Blocked so far, so it'd be an easy adjustment to make for them.
|
I’m all ears to hear how this doesn’t answer how it works plain as day unless you want to nit-pick on the details of the elusive Steel and Wood materials.I explain but I suspect you'd just ignore the question asked multiple times by more than one person: how do you take into affect the different hardness and hp totals of specific shields different from the base materials hardness and hp involved when you change the base materials. Continually pointing to the replaced materials IS ignoring the question, not answering it: pointing out a Standard-Grade Cold Iron Shield's hardness is totally useless in figuring out a Standard-Grade Cold Iron Forge Warden...
And again, we don't know is specific shields CAN use other materials. The examples are ALL of normal items, not pre-made specific items. NO examples explain how to substitute the based but enhanced base material for the unenhanced precious material so we don't know if this is an oversight or because it can't be done.
Steel Shield 5 hardness, 20 hp
Forge Warden 6 hardness, 24 hp
Both are steel... so SOMETHING changed the numbers: if it's the enchantments on the shield would it alter the precious material stats? We don't know so I can't understand your saying it's all solved.
graystone is 100% correct (yet again - I am beginning to think he would be an excellent Paizo product Editor)
However, since this thread has been moved to the home-brewed subforum, I think we can discuss how we can address the creation of specific shields using precious materials.
Our choices are: 1) Replacement, 2) Addition, 3) Percentage.
1) Replacement. This choice is consistent with Pumpkinhead11's posts. The Hardness, BT and HP values of the precious material replaces the Hardness, BT and HP values of the specific shield.
2) Addition. This choice requires a comparison between the base statistics of the shield specified against the values specified for the specific shield and adding the difference to the values of the precious materials.
Addition examples:
The Arrow-Catching Shield is a Wooden Shield. The base statistics of a Wooden Shield are: Hardness 3, BT 6 HP 12. The statistics of an Arrow-Catching Shield is Hardness 6, BT 12, HP 24. The additions the Arrow-Catching specific shield to the Hardness, BT and HP are respectively: +3, +6, +12.
So, if we wanted to make an Arrow-Catching Shield out of the standard-grade darkwood precious material, we would take the base statistics of the precious material: 5, 10, 20 and add +3, +6, +12 respectively and the resulting Arrow-Catching standard-grade darkwood shield would be: Hardness 8, BT 16, HP 32.
If we wanted to make a Forge Warden standard-grade adamantine shield the math would be as follows:
Forge Warden is a steel shield: Hardness 5, BT 10, HP 20.
Forge Warden stats: Hardness 6, BT 12, HP 24
Additions: +1, +2, +4
Standard-grade adamantine shield: Hardness 10, BT 20, HP 40
Forge Warden standard-grade adamantine shield: Hardness 11, BT 22, HP 44
3) Percentage. This choice also requires a comparison between the base statistics of the shield specified against the values specified for the specific shield but instead of adding the difference, it applies a percentage increase.
Percentage examples:
The Arrow-Catching Shield is a Wooden Shield. The base statistics of a Wooden Shield are: Hardness 3, BT 6 HP 12. The statistics of an Arrow-Catching Shield is Hardness 6, BT 12, HP 24. The percentage increase the Arrow-Catching specific shield applies to the Hardness, BT and HP are respectively: +100%, +100%, +100%.
So, if we wanted to make an Arrow-Catching Shield out of the standard-grade darkwood precious material, we would take the base statistics of the precious material: 5, 10, 20 and add +100%, +100%, +100% respectively and the resulting Arrow-Catching standard-grade darkwood shield would be: Hardness 10, BT 20, HP 40.
If we wanted to make a Forge Warden standard-grade adamantine shield the math would be as follows:
Forge Warden is a steel shield: Hardness 5, BT 10, HP 20.
Forge Warden stats: Hardness 6, BT 12, HP 24
Additions: +20%, +20%, +20%
Standard-grade adamantine shield: Hardness 10, BT 20, HP 40
Forge Warden standard-grade adamantine shield: Hardness 12, BT 24, HP 48
Should we limit the precious material to the specific shield's item level? E.g. Forge Warden is a Level 10 Item. Should we allow it to be constructed of a level 16 high-grade adamantine material? If so, should we change the Item Level to match the higher level of the material to 16?
Should we also allow for superior design and excellent craftmanship shield versions that use the Sturdy Shield statistics instead of the precious material statistics? E.g. A Forge Warden Moderate Sturdy Shield.
Any Questions/comments?
However, since this thread has been moved to the home-brewed subforum, I think we can discuss how we can address the creation of specific shields using precious materials.
With the move, this seems like a fine idea. Myself, #2 seems like what I'd do. It's easy enough to figure out the difference and add it back on top of the precious materials stats.
Should we limit the precious material to the specific shield's item level?
With precious materials already being uncommon I don't think there is too much to worry about here: you have to pay the extra cost and have to track it down.
E.g. A Forge Warden Moderate Sturdy Shield
That's a tough one as it's adding 2 specific items together then you'd have the possibility too of a Forge Warden Moderate Sturdy High-Grade Adamantine Shield... Things are getting more complicated.
For myself, I think sturdy should be a Property rune for shields that simply adds hardness and hp instead of it being it's own specific shield. Slapping a Lesser Sturdy rune on a shield for +5 hardness and +60 hp would solve a LOT of the issues people have with shields.
|
|
E.g. A Forge Warden Moderate Sturdy ShieldThat's a tough one as it's adding 2 specific items together then you'd have the possibility too of a Forge Warden Moderate Sturdy High-Grade Adamantine Shield... Things are getting more complicated.
For myself, I think sturdy should be a Property rune for shields that simply adds hardness and hp instead of it being it's own specific shield. Slapping a Lesser Sturdy rune on a shield for +5 hardness and +60 hp would solve a LOT of the issues people have with shields.
I agree allowing both precious materials and superior design and excellent craftmanship would be troublesome.
I like the Sturdy Property runes route. Here is my assessment on progression:
Type Lesser: +3 Hardness, +50 HP; Level 5; Price 160 gp
Type Greater: +8 Hardness, +100 HP; Level 11; Price 1,060 gp
Type Major: +13 Hardness, +150 HP; Level 18; Price 20,560 gp
The level and cost are consistent with the Armor Potency Runes. The increases are based on the increases over a base steel shield from the Sturdy Shield stats - attempting to keep a linear curve. Not sure if you want to increase the BT as well. You could add +25, +50 and +75 respectively.
So for Draco18s, here is the Forge Warden Shield stats when applied with a Greater Sturdy Property Rune:
Hardness 14, BT 62, HP 124
I think that shield would survive a few Shield Blocks at Level 11.
|
|
This brings up an interesting point. What happens to the Property Rune if the shield it is attached to is destroyed? This situation could occur with the Armor Potency Rune applied to armor that is destroyed (albeit a much less likely chance). Does the CRB say what happens to Runes etched onto items that are destroyed? My guess is that they are destroyed with the item, but I can't find anything that states that.
I would also think that you would need to invest in a shield with the Sturdy Property rune - just like a suit of armor requires.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For myself, I think sturdy should be a Property rune for shields that simply adds hardness and hp instead of it being it's own specific shield. Slapping a Lesser Sturdy rune on a shield for +5 hardness and +60 hp would solve a LOT of the issues people have with shields.
I'd combine something like this with the houserule someone previously mentioned of not letting Shields be permanently destroyed, only rendered useless until repaired.
I feel like, in general, most of the problems with Shields stem from the fact that they just kind of break all the existing conventions for how gear is supposed to work.
PF2 makes it very hard to permanently lose your gear, but Shields are highly destructible.
PF2 uses PF1's model of mundane equipment with scaling enchantments for power, but Shields are built more like Starfinder where you have a bunch of leveled items that are difficult to modify.
As a result you end up with wonky scaling and permanent items that feel more like consumables and scaling being applied inconsistently and it's all around just messy.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd combine something like this with the houserule someone previously mentioned of not letting Shields be permanently destroyed, only rendered useless until repaired.
I also like this, we no longer have to worry about what happens to the Rune situation. I never liked the "You can't repair a destroyed shield" rule anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never liked the "You can't repair a destroyed shield" rule anyway.
Very much THIS. Destroyed equipment should be a rare GM call and it needs to be based on a damn good reason -- i.e. the shield fell into a lake of molten lava or consumed by a horrendously corrosive assault that was far above "normal".
I think a good set of rules for destroyed shields could be making it like animal companions, familiars, spellbook, etc. Instead of paying with money, like it was in PF1e, now you're just unable to use this feature until you pay a significant amount of time to get it back. Some characters are getting new familiars and animal companions, while others are rewriting their spellbook, meanwhile a shield user is repairing or paying for repair that is a significant impact on the adventuring day, but doesn't actively harms the character's wealth by level, which is one of the main power scale measurements the designers created.
|
In that end i think errata should take a look at shield hp to properly position these items to be able to take at least an average hit without being broken.
Agreed. Improving shield stats would give shield users a fairly consistent resistance 5+ to physical damage. That is a pretty OP power, IMO. There has to be a balance between low level and higher without making higher too good. As a result, I think you just have to sort of suck it up and low levels and primarily use the shield for the AC boost, not for damage mitigation.
I'm already concerned that my 5th level, full plate wearing, shield ally Champion with a sturdy shield (hardness 10, 96/48hp) and shield warden might be teetering on the edge of OP. The only thing holding that back is needing to use my reaction in order to use my champion reaction power. Add in Quick Block at level 8 and that limitation goes away, plus my anticipation of an upgrade to a lesser sturdy shield for a boost to hardness 12, 120/60hp. I just don't see DpR going up as fast as the ability to mitigate it, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
Then the fact that Sturdy Shield is fine doesn't address the problem that "shields that are not sturdy are not fine."
Maybe that's by design. Maybe they intend for sturdy shields to be the ones you use if you want to shield block. And maybe they don't want all shield users to be shield blocking all the time. And that could be the reason why you generally cannot merge a special shield with a sturdy one because the special powers of those special shields is supposed to make up for (call it balance) not being able to shield block all the time.
I think we are going to learn a lot about the designer's intent when the next errata is released. If they don't make any fundamental changes to shields, then clearly the intend is they don't want everyone shield blocking all the time.
This is a question for everyone.
If given the choice, which would you all pick?
1) A level 16 8.8k gp adamantine Shield.
Or,
2) A level 11 3.4k gp adamantine Shield Boss, with a level 4 100 gp Minor Sturdy Shield, and 5.3k gp in cash.
Bingo!
I'm fine with low level shields being nearly consumable. I'm fine with Sturdy shields like they are, and sturdy shields being the strongest shields of their level, and that no rune etc should make them better than they are. Other magic shields of the same level should not be better, or even as good as the sturdy shield, as Sturdy shield should be the best for blocking shield. I might be curious what an Adamantine Sturdy shield would be, I might see it being better than a sturdy shield, but imagine is highly expensive and yet different from the indestructible shield. I like the indestructable sheild. It isn't better than the sturdy shield other than it doesn't get destoryed little bit by bit, you have to go through extraordinary measure and completely destroy, for it to get destroyed.
I presonally think that they intended for the special materials listed in the book to be a means to allow higher levels of other magic shields to gain more level appropriate stats, but they didn't include enough rules or examples to make this clear how to do it, or even if, for sure that was what was intended.
I'm willing to entertain people's claims that special materials like adamantine may be more expensive than they are really worth as designed and so falls potentially a bit flat as a solution to allowing shields to scale up at higher levels.
Clearing up the questions of how you would apply special materials as a means to upgrade magic shields for instance is definitely something that could be presented to help my concerns significantly, and I imagine it would help many others. Even the people saying... make sturdy a rune, I think would be happy to see some way to get the average magic utility shield (and the specific blocking required shields) up closer towards a sturdy shields one tier lower, for example (I think someone mentioned it as a potential baseline). I wouldn't make it the baseline, but it seems like a reasonable target for options to improve non-sturdy shields.
So I am 100% wanting shield use to represent Choice, but if you plan to wear a non-sturdy shield, then if you block with it you must plan on having to buy a brand new one is NOT an example of a fun choice for an ability that a considered a class feature for many classes.
It would be like a rule saying that other than wizards, all players of spellcasting classes must use a 'Spellcasting Staff' as a focus to cast any spells of 3rd level or higher. You now have a choice, if you don't want to HAVE to rely on a spellcasting staff, you choose to be a wizard, if you choose a different class, you have chosen to be dependent on this item. (which can't be a staff, that has spells in it, like a Magi's staff, it is a special staff for casting 3+ level spells, there is a level for each staff a 3rd level Spellcasting staff enables non-wizards to cast 3rd level spells, a 4th level spellcasting staff is needed to cast 4th and 3rd level spells. This would certainly set up a situation where you have to make a choice... but it is a choice that is fundamentally removing your choice to be able to do many concepts. And yes that analogy is also a bit extreme, but if you remain open to it, it might help someone understand why the current situation might feel wrong to some of us.
One potentially simple solution I have to admit that addresses most of my concerns is to simply say that magical shields that are taken down to 0 HP via HP damage are only completely destroyed if it exceeds their HP by their normal Max HP. So an undamaged lesser sturdy shield would only be destroyed completely in one hit if it took 136 points (remember the 8 points of hardness) of damage. That isn't likely to happen is it. Lets look at a Lion's head shield. It would only get destroyed by something that did 78 HP of damage in one hit. This way, if it takes 18 HP of damage (a 24 HP hit, it will be broken and unusable until repaired) but it is not going to be completely destroyed.
Perhaps a simple rule for such magic shields would be to say that destroyed, but not completely destroyed shields must be rebuilt, not just repaired. As such it takes the same minimum time it would take to build the shield with crafting downtime, and requires the same tools available as would be necessary to build the shield, but the 'destroyed' shield itself is considered the materials payment for the build, and does not require gold or materials payment on the top. (I've contemplated the idea of taking a destroyed, but not completely destroyed shield and it potentially having a cost of 10% to rebuild) I'm thinking without gold cost, having to take the time to rebuild the shield is enough to make it unusable almost until the next adventure, not just until the next day, is enough of a penalty. If you want to go down the wand-overcharging road, you could allow the shield in such a state to be repaired, but it gains a temporarily fragile trait. Its max HP is cut in half. (note this makes it more likely it could be completely destroyed in one hit) Now they can temporarily try to fix it, but at a much greater long-term risk. More options and choices for them to choose, depending on the circumstance.
Today however, I'm going to toss out an interesting option that might solve some of the 'too easily destroyed shield when blocking' situations.
When someone takes a critical hit, have your shield hit only block half of the damage. The other half automatically goes through. This means that critical hits will damage you, and you can still block them, but at least some of the damage is sure to get through to you. Also, critical hits are 'less' likely to completely take out your shield, because you weren't able to completely block them.
This admittedly makes shield block a little less powerful overall, especially in a few circumstances, but it also seems a reasonable limitation to put on it.
We might still have some things like the Arrow Catching shield which might still have some HP and/or hardness numbers off for a shield, which if I recall correctly requires you to block before you know damage since you declare it before they make their attack roll, if I recall correctly.
But otherwise, this simple rule could by insuring that critical hit's extra damage isn't getting applied to the shields HP, since it passes through unblocked, it means that shields aren't getting broken or completely destroyed early on against the chance critical hits. In fact it encourages you to block a critical hit to reduce the damage significantly, but you easily understand it can't reduce all of it, since they got by part of your defenses.
Otherwise, yes if you are using a lower level shield, you start running into chances of getting a broken or destroyed shield even vs one hit, but hopefully we'd see some advancements offered in some of the existing lower level shields and reliable rules for getting special materials shields with at least somewhat improved stats to other otherwise lower level shields, and shield block might remain viable class feature beyond 8th level without being dependent on the player acquiring a singular magic item with a few tiers.
Bingo!This is a question for everyone.
If given the choice, which would you all pick?
1) A level 16 8.8k gp adamantine Shield.
Or,
2) A level 11 3.4k gp adamantine Shield Boss, with a level 4 100 gp Minor Sturdy Shield, and 5.3k gp in cash.
A completely reasonable thing to point out, and to those willing to look at the situation, this might help identify that perhaps things could be improved on so that there isn't as big of a disparity between a special 16th level item and an 11th level item that one might think was similar in general description. And yes, given the comparison, I think most would go for the second. I'm not sure, but if you have a shield raise, and using a adamantine shield, and the creature has a weakness to adamantine, would they take damage when they critical miss an attack against you, which they would not if you just have a shield boss of adamantine?
So there might be an actual technical advantage to the actual Adamantine shield, but good point Temperans.
|
@Loreguard - Your idea that a shield would only block half damage on a critical hit suggests to me that you don't fully understand how shields work RAW.
As written, a shield prevents an amount of damage equal to it's Hardness. After that, any remaining damage is suffered by BOTH the wielder AND the shield. That is why the rules say players only decide to block an attack AFTER the damage of that attack is rolled, so they'll know if the shield will be destroyed by the blow or not, or whether it is better for the player to take that critical hit to their face instead of the shield that they already used 1 action to raise last turn. (the very idea of which strikes many as nuts)
Your idea would be that the shield would only block 1/2 Hardness on Crits, when chances are no one would ever choose to use Shield Block on a Critical Hit, which tend to be the highest damage hits anyways and they have the choice NOT to block on such a hit? Maybe you are thinking shields suffer ALL the damage until they are destroyed, at which point the wielder ONLY THEN suffers some damage (this is a very common misunderstanding of the shield rules that I've seen), and would make sense because you said that:
When someone takes a critical hit, have your shield hit only block half of the damage. The other half automatically goes through. This means that critical hits will damage you, and you can still block them, but at least some of the damage is sure to get through to you. Also, critical hits are 'less' likely to completely take out your shield, because you weren't able to completely block them.
That statement makes no sense when you understand that both the shield and the user take all damage beyond the shield's Hardness.
So, now that you know the RAW, does that change your opinion that "shields are fine how they are?"
Ok, kind of scarry, I realized I had written too much, and so pared it down to what I felt like was more core to the topic. Correcting the misunderstanding of my suggestion, and second my litumus test on what I consider important out of what a shield blocks should and should not be able to do. And yes, it still is frightfully long. Sorry.
@Loreguard - Your idea that a shield would only block half damage on a critical hit suggests to me that you don't fully understand how shields work RAW.
As written, a shield prevents an amount of damage equal to it's Hardness. After that, any remaining damage is suffered by BOTH the wielder AND the shield. That is why the rules say players only decide to block an attack AFTER the damage of that attack is rolled, so they'll know if the shield will be destroyed by the blow or not, or whether it is better for the player to take that critical hit to their face instead of the shield that they already used 1 action to raise last turn. (the very idea of which strikes many as nuts)
Your idea would be that the shield would only block 1/2 Hardness on Crits, when chances are no one would ever choose to use Shield Block on a Critical Hit, which tend to be the highest damage hits anyways and they have the choice NOT to block on such a hit? Maybe you are thinking shields suffer ALL the damage until they are destroyed, at which point the wielder ONLY THEN suffers some damage (this is a very common misunderstanding of the shield rules that I've seen), and would make sense because you said that:
When someone takes a critical hit, have your shield hit only block half of the damage. The other half automatically goes through. This means that critical hits will damage you, and you can still block them, but at least some of the damage is sure to get through to you. Also, critical hits are 'less' likely to completely take out your shield, because you weren't able to completely block them.That statement makes no sense when you understand that both the shield and the user take all damage beyond the shield's Hardness.
So, now that you know the RAW, does that change your opinion that "shields are fine how they are?"
I understand how it works raw, and I didn't say that the shield only block half its hardness. I attempted to clearly state that on a critical hit... half of the damage to the person went strait through, i.e. was not involved in any of the blocking.
So an example being, if someone took 22hp damage from a critical hit. They don't want to take that much damage, so, since they had their shield raised they preform their shield block reaction with it. So, 11 HP will go on, unblocked, completely unaffected by the shield block, lets wait for what happens to the rest before proceeding.
That leaves 11hp which goes through the blocking process. Of the 11hp damage involved in the block, we will in this instance say the shield has a hardness of 6. That will mean that the hardness eliminates 6 of the 11 points of damage, leaving 5 left. That damage gets passed on to both the shield and the wielder. That means the result of the block is that 5 +11 (the original bypassed damage) or 16hp damage affects the wielder, and 5hp damage is taken by the shield, and needs to be compared to its BT.
Anyway, I thought I was clear, that with the new idea, I was saying that on a critical hit, 1/2 the damage Bypasses the block, not that it reduces the hardness. But if that was unclear in the post, thank you for presenting a possible misinterpretation. I did not intend tor people to think the hardness needed to be halved.
Again, the goal is to reduce the amount of damage the shield takes from on-level hits to the point where complete destruction is unlikely from an undamaged shield, and especially to insure that attempts to use a magic shield to block a critical hit end up feeling like they are fundamentally an economic decision, not a defense decision. The concern being that at higher levels non-sturdy shield are probably most likely going to destroy the shield if it is a crit. People have pointed out that they like choices. This makes it less likely that blocking a critical hit will be dictated by economic conditions, thereby allowing the wielder a more meaningful choice.
End goal (litmus test): Let me just say, an Average on-level magic shield should not generally be likely to be destroyed outright by preforming a shield block with it. Yes, some individual shields might, due to the nature of the shield they are supposed to actually be fragile, so there might be a design space for some shields that 'should not' be used to block (and the Spellguard shield might just be one like that), but your Average one (and sturdy are not average) should be able to survive one strike from an on-level foe without being destroyed. They most certainly might break against only one strike, but should not be destroyed. (this is my opinion, but is based on the above guideline, which I think most people would understand, and many would agree)
Samurai, I will note, that I know about your homebrew suggestion that all shield blocks that surpass hardness simply do 1hp of damage, and commend it on its simplicity. However, I tend to believe it makes shield breaking really a near impossibility outside of some strange reason where they don't have the ability to break for 10 minutes, or don't have the necessary repair tools to refresh their shields. So it is an elegant and simple solution rule wise, but I effectively eliminates the actual situation of a shield even breaking being particularly viable. I certainly would not be upset if I heard a group I was going to play with was using your rule however. It is better than non-sturdy high level shields being almost invariably specifically fragile.
I'm however all for shields breaking under appropriate circumstances. I am even fine with really rare circumstances a damaged shield being destroyed by a strong foe. I simply want it to be extremely hard, and rare, to completely destroy most magic shields in one hit with a foe you might be expected to be able to vanquish. If a 5th level party meets a 10th level giant and the party is running but the giant gets a parting shot at the fighter with a shield that was providing a bit of cover for his comrade's, it might be reasonable for the shield to bite it, but it isn't hard to imagine the fighter may be in bad shape themselves after it. But that could be a story worthy of the demise of a shield. The 10th level party, fighting the 10th level giant, the fighter raising his shield shouldn't be telling the story of hot the giant destroyed his newly purchased Forge Warden shield blocking. Nor should he be telling the story about how he chose not to use a shield block, and took the damage like a loyal dwarf, rather than allow his shield to be damaged. Neither of those are stories that seem appropriate results of an on-level encounter, that I as a GM or the player would be proud to tell to another RPG aficionado. That is kind of my litmus test.
|
|
@ Loreguard - You apparently have an older version of my house rules. Recently, the GM of the game I'm playing in didn't know or understand how shields work in 2e, and he came up with a good idea that I have been using ever since (and is now included in my house rules, recently updated to version 1.59 as I write this).
That rule is somewhat similar to your idea, and here is how it works:
Step 1: Reduce the damage of the hit by the shield's Hardness.
Step 2: Divide the remaining damage equally between the shield and the target being protected (typically the shield wielder, but could be someone else in some cases)
We have found this rule works pretty well in play. It came about because the GM had (mis)read Shield Block on pg 266, where it says "You and the shield each take any remaining damage" to mean that you divide the damage between each of you, rather than both of you take the FULL remaining damage.
In your rule proposal idea, how would it work if it was a normal hit that did 22 points of damage, instead of a critical hit? Then there is no "divide by half", right? That normal hit would then become (22-6 =) 16 damage to both the shield and the wielder.
Under my current house rules, that 16 remaining damage is divided into 8 damage to the shield and 8 to the wielder.