|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...so many players and fans...A reminder: We don't have even remotely accurate figures for how many fans feel there is a problem.
We know how many people on this forum feel there is a problem, but the opinion of the collective player-base cannot be determined by viewing the opinion of the minuscule fraction of the player-base that talk about the game publicly online - even if literally every single poster here agreed on something.
In my personal experience, the GM of the PF2e game I'm playing in started the game insisting he wanted to use the rulebook RAW. It only took 1 game before he realized the shield rules didn't work as he had thought they did upon first reading them, so he declared his 1st "house rule" to make it work as he thought it should. The Shield rules as written are so glaringly imbalanced and counter-intuitive that he had to change the RAW immediately... Even now, after playing for months, those are the only significant rule that he has changed.
I believe that putting words in other people's mouths is not just rude, but against the rules of this forum.
Also thenobledrake:
Question: "Can we fix them?"
Answering Question: "Are they working as intended?"Answer Possibility A: "Yes." Then no, they cannot be fixed.
Answer Possibility B: "No." Then they can probably be fixed.
This is the rule discussion section, not house rules section, so discussion of the shin kicking machine and how it functions are appropriate but "I want to reprogram the shin kicking machine" isn't.
I mean, unless you are saying that this isn't the argument that you've been using, in which case, what was your point again? As far as I can remember, and with 2 ongoing discussions on the same topic I could very well be mistaken, your key point has been largely that shields are likely fine as is, and you see no reason why they should be or need to be altered or "fixed". Is that not your point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then perhaps it would help to know what your actual opinion is on the matter, based on what you've heard thus far in the thread. The fact is that besides some hard numbers that seem to show that shields underperform at their own level, easy enough to look at I just haven't taken the time personally, all we have is anecdotal evidence.
My evidence is how my group has largely decided to disregard shields entirely. This is based on the performance of a shield vs. an enemy 1 level lower primarily, and how easily broken they tend to be. So far, we have yet to have a shield produce any significant results, beyond providing it's +2 AC for being raised.
This is a problem for me, as Shield Block is new in 2nd edition, and in my opinion should be a compelling option rather than something that you just don't want to do. Especially when the class most likely to try to use it, Champions, have a much "better" reaction to save the reaction for.
For instance in our current game we have a Champion. We are level 6, he has a Minor Sturdy Shield, and yet he hasn't been in position where actually blocking with it has been a good option. This is mostly due to wanting to save his reaction for Champion's Reaction, as that saves more net HP than shield block does and doesn't run the risk of taking away his AC bonus from the shield.
Granted he hasn't had the opportunity to take any feats yet that boost the effectiveness of his shield, and took a blade ally so that isn't factored in either. But my key sticking issue is that Shield Block should at least be compelling to the character as an option. Up to this point, it hasn't been, which tells me that the rule isn't in a good place at the moment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think before we discuss shields (in either thread) we should first establish a common understanding of the term "shield user" and what the shield is to accomplish for them.
From what I can see there are at least 3 distinctive levels of shield use.
1) Characters that just "happen" to carry a shield for AC. Those can use any shield from character level 1 to 20 as even a level 0 shield will provide +2 AC. That is total freedom of choice of shield.
2) Characters whose class features incorporate the shield block general feat (e.g. druid or warpriest) or who selected the shield block general feat. Those characters might want to shield block on a regular basis as part of their defense routine (often because they can not utilize an alternative proper reaction), which would lock them down to sturdy shields OR be contend with just the AC bonus while using a shield that provides unique benefits apart from hardness and the related damage reduction.
3) Characters who are specialized in shields and apart from wanting to use shield block as part of their defensive routine need shield block to work on a regular basis in order to utilize their class feats. Those chars seem to be locked to sturdy shields only.
Saying that perhaps this discussion should be held in the "homebrew" section is one of the weakest arguments I see on this forum, and it gets dragged out a lot. With the emphasis that PF2 places on GM adjudication, the line is blurry between what is and is not "House Rules".
The only reason I said that was because, for a while, it seemed like people were coming up with more house rules/new systems rather than simply discussing the existing rules themselves. It seemed like it was going beyond mere minor fixes. However, since making that statement, the thread seams to have returned to the original subject matter.
People, please take a step back and take a look at the greater picture here:
Shield blocking can't be as good as you wish it should be, otherwise it would blow every other fighting style out of the water!
Remind yourself that shields not only give +2 AC in exchange for an action (and do so right from lv. 1 onward), they are also d6 bashing or piercing weapons in their own right.
Consider a two-handed wielder: D12 weapon is ideal for Power Attack, but you sacrifice that potential +2 AC and block chance.
Now look at a one-hand wielder: +2 to AC for 1 action can be done via Duelling Parry, by a Fighter from lv. 2 onward. That's it. You better have something VERY useful to do with your off hand, even if you ARE a Fighter.
And finally, two-weapon fighters. Either you are stuck with an off-hand weapon with the Parry trait, trading an action for +1 AC, or you are a Fighter or Ranger of 4th level or higher and take Twin Parry. Maybe even do both for +2 AC. Else, no AC bonus for you!
Except, with a shield as an off-hand weapon, you can have your +2 AC cake and still use Double Slice, Twin Takedown or Twin Feint. Sure, a d6 weapon that is neither Finesse nor Agile isn't a terribly good off-hand weapon, but who says you can't let the shield bash be your first attack? Heck, a Fighter who is willing to eat the -2 for non-Agile weapon with his second attack could just use his Master proficiency at lv. 5 to cancel out the penalty on his main weapon... which he uses for the second strike with Double Slice. He'd still be better off the any other class because both strikes in a Double Strike happen without MAP.
So there would be no reason whatsoever to NOT use a shield as your second weapon, if you'd also get a super reliable Shield Block on top of everything else. As it stands now, a Shield Block is some situational damage resistance. Nice to have, but not essential. But upset that balance and what other style but (insert favourite 1-handed weapon here) & board is even still viable (with the exception of two-handed Power Attacking maybe)?
I will say, there is a reason that shields are literally one of the most used military equipment and used for milenia even in the age of guns. From the Roman's Scutums, Spartan's Hoplon, the Viking Shield, the versatile Kite Shield, or the modern Balistic Shield shield they have always been used. Not because those shield turn to paper mache after 1-3 hits, but because they provide one of the best most reliable defenses vs some of the era's strongest attack.
Ofcourse there was also the secondary benefit of weapons getting stuck on the shield (specially wooden ones). Which disabled small weapon users, but could become a liability if a large weapon got stuck.
Shields have always been one of the best ways to keep yourself safe in combat. I see no reason why it should be any different in PF2.
Because, for better or worse, magical healing is stronger than mitigative defenses...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People, please take a step back and take a look at the greater picture here:
Shield blocking can't be as good as you wish it should be, otherwise it would blow every other fighting style out of the water!
This can't be true, because Sturdy Shield already exists.
No one has a problem with sturdy shield's stats.You don't have a problem with sturdy shield being too sturdy.
Ergo what those of us who have a problem with the other shields won't suddenly "invalidate other fighting styles" by having shields be more durable than they are, but not as durable as sturdy shield.
Sturdy shields are for blocking. But they offer nothing else.
Other shields are for the +2 AC and whatever else effect they offer. Of course, if actually using them for their intended purpose destroys, or even just breaks them in a single hit, that is a problem. But it is a problem mostly because of the gold that potentially goes up in smoke (or splinters) in that case, not so much that they can't provide as many 'ablative HP'.
But that doesn't change the fact that making shields too good would invalidate other fighting styles.
In the end, it's like with the magic. So many people complain that it has been over-nerfed. Arguably. But the point is, it is easier to introduce some power creep (or even errata in extreme cases), then to get the djinn back in the bottle.
I'll reserve judgement until I see the APG and its contents. I'd wager they have something for shield users in there.
Sturdy shields are for blocking. But they offer nothing else.
You can still shield bash with them. The exact thing you're worried about.
Other shields are for the +2 AC and whatever else effect they offer. Of course, if actually using them for their intended purpose destroys, or even just breaks them in a single hit, that is a problem.
...That's exactly the problem I've been pointing at for months:
Explain Forge Warden and Arrow Catching, then.
But that doesn't change the fact that making shields too good would invalidate other fighting styles.
Sturdy Shield already fills the niche you claim would "invalidate other fighting styles," by offering a decent amount of damage reduction AND the hitpoints to take more than 2 hits before breaking. No one is really asking to make Sturdy Shield better. Its the baseline of how good we think a shield should be and how the alternatives are objectively worse, despite costing 10 to 100 times more and offering no additional benefits (e.g. Adamantine Shield).
I will admit that even I think that the hardness values on Sturdy should go up faster, but I'm taking taking it from 20 (at level 19) to 25 or 30 hardness, enough that it actually has a possibility of taking no damage from what would be a weak hit from a monster of approximately equal level (a level 19 creature does between 4d8+16 and 4d12+18 damage). And I'm willing to see its max HP come down some to compensate. I'm not sure how much is the right number, say... 130 instead of 160? That gives the same number of blocks (at 25 hardness) vs. average hits.
But that applies only to the most durable of shields. Weaker shields meant for other things should be behind this value. I just think that 5 and 8 (with a BT of 12) is too far behind.
Then the last thing would be rules on how to apply hardness and HP adjustments when making specific shields out of other materials (and maybe high level sturdy shields should already be made out of adamantine!)
And now that I think about it, it introduces the potential for a shield with extremely low HP but a very powerful effect.
Related, but more on the aspect of Forge Warden and Arrow Catching: if giving them more durability is a problem because you can activate the ability more than once if you do. There's literally 3 words that fix that from a balance perspective.
"Once per day"
Using a shield not designed to sustain constant, heavy blows, needing a consumable seems about right. They'll go nicely next to my potions and ammunition.Explain Forge Warden and Arrow Catching, then.
This is where things get controversial, because I believe you simply craft them out of Precious Materials to make them better. Substituting the original stats with the ones of the new material. As for why Steel and Wood seem to change for different Specific Shields, there’s an entry under crafting with Precious Materials that says: Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.
Since the Precious Material is a substitution it would override the current shield’s stats.
Could the book state it much less confusingly and in a less convoluted manner? Absolutely. Currently we only have Nethysian Bulwark and Reflecting Shield as positive examples to show this is a reasonable assumption. Indestructible Shield inherently works differently in its design than other shields do, and thus breaks consistency. Currently waiting to see if examples in the APG proves the same or deviate.
That said, personally speaking, it shores up the main issues being presented; especially with the worst offenders, and seems the likely conclusion. This is, however, just my take on it.
I don't have an issue with some shields being not-blockers (the Spell Catching shield is a good example, its defensive abilities are elsewhere).
Possible i haven’t said so before, but expecting 2-3 hits with minimal investment sounds perfectly reasonable; and even when taking Precious Materials into account they end up just below that bar. That is something i agree should be addressed with additional content rather than changing the mechanics.
I am also defining minimal investment as Shield Block(Class ability or Feat), a Shield, and a Talisman. As an example, if a Wizard wanted to lessen a blow to the face with his Spellguard Shield because things went south during a normal combat, then i feel that should be achievable with at most the general feat, and the maintenance of upgrading said shield, without expecting it to blow to pieces.
Or how about why even adamantine isn't as good as magical steel and why we can't have magical adamantine.
Nowhere in the book does it state that you can’t have Magical Adamantine. It actually states that if you want to make a Magic Item out of Adamantine then you need the proper Grade of Material to do so. Again, this could have been placed better and more apparent. As for why Magic is harder than Adamantine? Ask the Developers.
Or why druids can't use sturdy shields.
You’re absolutely right. This could be alleviated with additional content; as an example, a Primal Spell that adds Hardness and maybe even HP specifically to Wooden shields. Druids also have no feats in their class that support shield use, as opposed to Fighters and Champions which have numerous. This is a problem from lack of content, not an example of Shield Mechanics not working in the slightest.
Or...
You’re free to continue. This is all pretty easy to fix and still leaves plenty of room to grow without needing massive changes like some have suggested.
Maybe we should analyze shield usage another way. Since we seem to have settled the issue that you know how much damage you are taking before you have to decide whether to let the shield take the damage, a player intend on preserving an expensive magic shield might follow this strategy:
Is the damage less than or equal to the shield's hardness? If yes, let the shield take the damage, as it is not harmed at all by the attack.
Are you about to go down? If so, let the shield take the damage even if it breaks the shield.
Otherwise, take the damage yourself.
With that strategy in mind -- how worthwhile is it to use up one action each round just to increase your AC by +2? That would seem to be the most common case for people using non-sturdy shields.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is where things get controversial, because I believe you simply craft them out of Precious Materials to make them better. Substituting the original stats with the ones of the new material.
Well, except the steel shields that don't have the stats of the steel shield...
As for why Steel and Wood seem to change for different Specific Shields, there’s an entry under crafting with Precious Materials that says: Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.
Since the Precious Material is a substitution it would override the current shield’s stats.
This makes no sense. "The hardness is different from the base steel shield because the cost is inexpensive." What?
That in no way tells us what the stats of an adamantine Spellguard Shield should be. Base, using steel, its hardness is 6 and HP 24 but a common steel shield is 5 and 20. Where'd the extra point come from? Is it a +1 because magic, or is it a +20% because magic? We simply do not have listed details of what stats "high-grade steel" has.
Similarly we can't just take adamantine's stats and make an adamantine sturdy shield, adamantine's stats are lower than the base (STEEL) sturdy shield of the same level.
On top of that, the reflecting shield is made of "This high-grade silver" and is a buckler with stats of "Hardness 6, HP 24." Lets go look at a high-grade silver buckler, shall we?
Hardness 6, HP 24.
Wait. That's the same. So what's up with the floating shield? Material unknown, Hardness 6, HP 24.
Or how about the Force Shield vs. the Spellguard shield? Both are "steel shield"s except the Force shield has "Hardness 8, HP 32" and the spellguard is "Hardness 6, HP 24"
Then there's the Lion's Shield, which is also steel, but "Hardness 6, HP 36". Same hardness as every other shield, but more HP. Why?
Then perhaps it would help to know what your actual opinion is on the matter, based on what you've heard thus far in the thread.Okay, here goes:
Shield Block is a cool addition to the game. I like it, my players like it. They don't seem to be using it nearly as much as other groups, though. I've been stuck at low levels (my usual gaming group exploded because of personal issues, and the group I built since then has only had 2 sessions together) and everything seems fine so far.
As for higher levels: I'm not sure about much of anything. Sturdy Shields might be too much, or they might not be enough. Other shields might be fine, or they might need a change.
My suspicions are that precious material pricing is too high (in general, not just for shields), and that the arrow catching shield is likely not working as intended (and I suspect the reason to be that it worked fine in the dent system while taking dents equally to another shield, and when switched to the HP system it was given HP equal to that other shield in the fill-in process rather than being re-evaluated to ensure intended function).
That is generally where I am to be honest. I will say that seeing shield block, I was excited as it appeared to be a decent use of a classically under used piece of kit. But in practice, I still haven't seen a shield actually be useful for blocking, and when it is considered it usually comes with the discussion, "But what if it breaks? That'll be expensive," coming up. There's also the angle that most characters that gain shield block by default usually have other reactions that they'd rather use. The fighter has AoO, the Champ has their champ reaction.
I've only seen one character actually use Shield Block more than once, and it was a Druid. And he had a terrible time. That is all based on experience from 6th level and below.
The fact is that besides some hard numbers that seem to show that shields underperform at their own level...We can't say for sure that they are actually "underperforming" unless the devs tell us what the performance benchmark is supposed to be.
We can only say whether we like the way they are performing.
It is a subtle, but very important, distinction. One which I can illustrate with wands: if I use a wand twice and it is destroyed, I can say "That's not the performance I want from a wand." But I cannot say "Wands underperform" because how much use they are supposed to be happens to be clear from the text (that part is unlike shields - which is why we've got people thinking they are meant for 1, maybe 2 blocks unless they are explicitly harder to destroy, and people thinking a shield should be soaking up 4+ hits on the regular).
Except that this is exactly what feedback is for. It has been my experience that Shields, and more specifically Shield Block, under performs to the point that it has become a non-option for the characters that take it. And there aren't very many options for increasing it's effectiveness that we've bypassed.
Maybe if our Champ had taken a Shield Ally and gained the bonus Hardness and HP/BT that entails, he'd be more willing to Shield Block. But saying that there is an option that makes Shield Block viable isn't a point in it's favor. Without Shield Ally he hasn't been in a position where Shield Block was a good option, which shows that the problem lies with the core shield rules more than any option that could make them better.
I mean if you don't want to use it baseline, why would you want to specialize into it to make it usable?
Your experience with shields will almost definitely be different from mine, but try just using one out of the box for a while. Really get into the logistics of keeping spare shields on hand and trying to lean into shield block at the expense of other class abilities. Then you will get a feeling for whether shields are really in a good place.
Like I said, all we really have is anecdotal evidence, but that is the same metric Paizo used to remove the Dent system, which I was a fan of. So yeah I'll take to the forum and put my anecdotal evidence out there for why I feel that shields underperform.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sturdy shields are for blocking. But they offer nothing else.You can still shield bash with them. The exact thing you're worried about.
I'll thank you for actually reading my post and not putting words in my mouth.
Since ALL shields can be used as weapons, I was kinda under the impression that that did not need explicit mentioning. But I'll rephrase just for you:
Sturdy shields are for the +2 AC, the shield bash and blocking. But they have no other functionality.
...That's exactly the problem I've been pointing at for months:
Yes. I read the threads. I was just reiterating to sort things out.
Sturdy Shield already fills the niche you claim would "invalidate other fighting styles," by offering a decent amount of damage reduction AND the hitpoints to take more than 2 hits before breaking. No one is really asking to make Sturdy Shield better. Its the baseline of how good we think a shield should be and how the alternatives are objectively worse, despite costing 10 to 100 times more and offering no additional benefits (e.g. Adamantine Shield).
Read my post again, you do not seem to understand it properly. Sturdy shields are good enough to be used for blocking. The price they pay is that they offer no additional functionality ABOVE OTHER SHIELDS.
Some shields DO offer some additional functionality, but they are unsuitable to blocking because only a low-roll hit would not break them on their respective levels. Basically, you trade blocking for that other functionality. Those shields are fine too. If they were too sturdy, they would make sturdy shields pointless.
AND THEN we have shields with functions that only ever work when you actually use them to block. When THESE shields risk breaking, or even destruction by being used as intended, THAT is a problem. But not the other shields.
I will admit that even I think that the hardness values on Sturdy should go up faster, but I'm taking taking it from 20 (at level 19) to 25 or 30 hardness, enough that it actually has a possibility of taking no damage from what would be a weak hit from a monster of approximately equal level (a level 19 creature does between 4d8+16 and 4d12+18 damage). And I'm willing to see its max HP come down some to compensate. I'm not sure how much is the right number, say... 130 instead of 160? That gives the same number of blocks (at 25 hardness) vs. average hits.
The thing is, as things stand now, shield blocks have the best results at low levels, where PCs also have the least HP. As HP go up, the relative value of the shield block goes down. However, shields gradually getting worse at mitigating damage is not that bad as long as we are talking about levels where PC HP are plenty.
But there must always be a price to be paid for using a shield as a second weapon. Part of it is that shields are d6 weapons that are neither finesseable nor agile. You could instead be sucking up the -4/-5 MAP for your second strike with your primary weapon, because you do not actually strike with the shield though. It could be investing in Doubling Rings to make sure your off-hand defensive weapon is up to snuff (although every two-weapon warrior has to do that). Or, of course, the fact that you are not using a two-handed weapon, thus sacrificing damage.
Just remember that not every class even gets Shield Block out of the gate. But for those classes that do, they have to have to make a trade-off. Double Slice with sword & board is a terrific combo for a Fighter, or anyone who invests 2 dedication feats. But If you get to enjoy +2 AC AND a decent off-hand weapon, then you EITHER get a usable blocking function, OR an extra functionality. Not both.
Only the shields that are SUPPOSED to be used to block attack TO TRIGGER THEIR INTENDED EXTRA FUNCTION are broken and need fixing. The others work well enough as is.
EITHER ablative HP, OR something extra, not both.
Then the last thing would be rules on how to apply hardness and HP adjustments when making specific shields out of other materials (and maybe high level sturdy shields should already be made out of adamantine!)...
Maybe, maybe not. I hope the APG offers some insight. Looking forward to it.
I will step in here to say that I won't comment on this thread much because it is in the wrong section of the forum. I have, however, been participating in the discussion on Sturdy Shields in General.
Except that this is exactly what feedback is for.You're still not understanding the distinction I'm talking about.
We know whether or not the mechanics are living up to our own expectations of them. "I think shields are underperforming."
We do not know whether they are living up to Paizo's expectations of them or not. "shields are underperforming."
Then you have no problem with people in this thread stating their opinions on shields. We haven't gotten Paizo's expectations in any form that I'm aware of, so all we have to talk about is our own. Which we're doing.
This is where things get controversial, because I believe you simply craft them out of Precious Materials to make them better. Substituting the original stats with the ones of the new material.Well, except the steel shields that don't have the stats of the steel shield...
Steel Shields have stats for Steel Shields in the equipment and materials section. Specific Shields have varying stats for requiring a purer form of the common material. This is a designer choice. One that has been criticized for just adding confusion and making the initial Shield seem fragile and underwhelming.
This makes no sense. "The hardness is different from the base steel shield because the cost is inexpensive." What?As for why Steel and Wood seem to change for different Specific Shields, there’s an entry under crafting with Precious Materials that says: Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.
Since the Precious Material is a substitution it would override the current shield’s stats.
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.
This is not something i am infering. That is the actual quote from the book, and is directly after saying you can use precious materials to replace common materials, such as Wood or Steel, when crafting Magic Items. They could have just made scaling Wood and Steel so that we could compare them with Specific Shields; but not much we can do about that with what we have at the moment.
That in no way tells us what the stats of an adamantine Spellguard Shield should be. Base, using steel, its hardness is 6 and HP 24 but a common steel shield is 5 and 20. Where'd the extra point come from? Is it a +1 because magic, or is it a +20% because magic? We simply do not have listed details of what stats "high-grade steel" has.
You’re making it more complicated than it actually is. Steel is a common material and doesn’t have a ‘High-Grade’ or ‘Low-Grade’. The paragraph before Precious Materials mentions that the GM typically uses the strongest material involved. A Spellguard Shield would then just be using a higher purity of steel; which can be replaced with a Precious Material. The rules supporting this can be found in the book, mostly under the Materials section.
Similarly we can't just take adamantine's stats and make an adamantine sturdy shield, adamantine's stats are lower than the base (STEEL) sturdy shield of the same level.
You are absolutely correct. This puts Sturdy Shield in a peculiar spot, and Druid is disproportionately affected by this. Weather this is something that needs to be fixed is a fair critique or discussion point. Even if the rules stay the same in this regard, there is an obviously noticeable hole around wooden shields just being a bit too inferior. This can be solved with additional content.
On top of that, the reflecting shield is made of "This high-grade silver" and is a buckler with stats of "Hardness 6, HP 24." Lets go look at a high-grade silver buckler, shall we?
Hardness 6, HP 24.Wait. That's the same. So what's up with the floating shield? Material unknown, Hardness 6, HP 24.
The Floating Shield is a Buckler. Just like the Steel and Wooden Shields we can find more information on the Buckler in the Shields section under Equipment much earlier in the book.
This very small shield is a favorite of duelists and quick, lightly armored warriors. It’s typically made of steel and strapped to your forearm. You can Raise a Shield with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or are holding a light object that’s not a weapon in that hand.
So a Buckler is made out of Steel. This would mean the Floating Shield would be a Buckler made typically of Steel.
Or how about the Force Shield vs. the Spellguard shield? Both are "steel shield"s except the Force shield has "Hardness 8, HP 32" and the spellguard is "Hardness 6, HP 24"
Force and Spellguard are also different item levels, with the former being the higher of the two. If the Force Shield had lesser stats than the Spellguard, then you’d have a fantastic point for the inconsistency; but at the moment it still falls under how the book describes it and doesn’t betray it’s own rules in this regard. One is made out of a purer common material than the other.
Yes, it is certainly a rather convoluted way for the book to describe such a simple and important mechanic.
Then there's the Lion's Shield, which is also steel, but "Hardness 6, HP 36". Same hardness as every other shield, but more HP. Why?
This one is an actual issue among all the shields. Though the Reflecting Shield description could use better structuring IMO. Lion’s Shield openly goes against the formula for no apparent reason. I personally believe it’s stats are a typo or mistake of some sort, though I have no evidence to support that is the case. I will agree that it is an example against my claim. Though it seems a bit much to say the whole things needs to change because of a couple things that could be cleared up with a little clarification errata and additional examples.
This is mostly why more content needs to be released.
Read my post again, you do not seem to understand it properly. Sturdy shields are good enough to be used for blocking. The price they pay is that they offer no additional functionality ABOVE OTHER SHIELDS.
Some shields DO offer some additional functionality, but they are unsuitable to blocking because only a low-roll hit would not break them on their respective levels. Basically, you trade blocking for that other functionality. Those shields are fine too. If they were too sturdy, they would make sturdy shields pointless.
AND THEN we have shields with functions that only ever work when you actually use them to block. When THESE shields risk breaking, or even destruction by being used as intended, THAT is a problem. But not the other shields.
Between a class of items that is meant for blocking well and often, and another one that offers a special ability only (since blocking with that is counterproductive 99% of the time), there is a whole world that wasn't explored at all. It's not like you can't give the non-sturdy magical shields reasonable stats that allow blocking with them sometimes: not doing that it was either a choice, or an oversight.
The fact that we have two shields that are problematic by your own admission, makes me think that maybe some of the others' stats were an oversight too.
Which we're doing.I suppose you don't agree that there is a difference between the following two statements then?
"You are wrong."
"I disagree with you."
Sure, there is a difference. What's your point?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, there is a difference. What's your point?...that "shields are underperforming" and "I don't think shields do enough" are different things.
Which is why I brought up that we can't say the former, even if the latter is true. Because those phrases aren't the same thing, and aren't synonymous.
Not true actually. I never said that shields are underperforming to Paizo's standards. I say they are underperforming to my standards.
And saying that shields are underperforming to my standards is synonymous with I don't think shields do enough. But either way, this conversation has strayed off topic.
Nope. "shields are underperforming" isn't the same as "shields are underperforming to my standards" - you have to include the language that makes it a subjective statement or it is an objective statement.
People can't read your mind to know the difference without you using the different words.
My bad. I didn't realize that I needed to spell out how I feel on this subject.
Ahem. I feel that shields do not perform well at the levels that I have witnessed them used. My party has a disdain for shields, stemming from our usage of them, and the small amount of research I've done leads me to believe that most shields won't perform well at level ranges that I haven't personally played yet, and I have a problem with that which I would like to complain about on the internet.
Up to your standards now?
I think the issue is one of presentation.
When we are first introduced to the concept of shields in the CRB, we are told:
1. You can Raise a Shield to get +2 to AC.
2. If your Shield is Raised, and you have the feat in question, you can use it to Shield Block thereby reducing damage.
3. The champion and the fighter have access to several feats focusing on shields in general and blocking in particular.To me, this says that blocking is supposed to be a Big Thing with shields.
But then we get to the Treasure chapter, where we are presented a number of higher-level shields, all but one of which is nigh useless for blocking. This might be balanced - you either get the survivability of a Sturdy shield, or you sacrifice that for some other ability, but it feels kinda bad.
Compare this to weapons. Weapons are for hitting and damaging things. Any self-respecting high-level weapon will have a potency rune and a striking rune – that's the weapon baseline. In addition, weapons may have property runes giving them neat abilities. But with the shield, you either get abilities that look baseline or neat stuff. That's like saying you can either have a +1 striking sword, or a flaming sword. That's nowhere near as fun.
Now, you might argue that Raise the Shield is the baseline for shields, getting +2 AC, and that blocking is an add-on to that. But that's not how shields are presented when we first get to meet them in the CRB, and that results in people getting disappointed when they read the sweet magic shields.
Presentation seems to be the most common culprit. In the scope of all Magic Items and features supporting it, Shields rank extremely low in numbers when compared to Weapon and Armor, and have a heavier risk/reward expectation than the others. With Precious Materials mostly taking criticism for not being as direct and too the point, as well as lacking in a satisfying example.
Between a class of items that is meant for blocking well and often, and another one that offers a special ability only (since blocking with that is counterproductive 99% of the time), there is a whole world that wasn't explored at all. It's not like you can't give the non-sturdy magical shields reasonable stats that allow blocking with them sometimes: not doing that it was either a choice, or an oversight.
As I see it, having unexplored design space means having an opportunity to sell more books. And seeing that that is what Paizo does to earn money...
So I'd wager, we'll see some new things show up in future publications. Especially after they have data from society play to dial in numbers to meet player expectations.
The fact that we have two shields that are problematic by your own admission, makes me think that maybe some of the others' stats were an oversight too.
Possible. But that is just speculation. Whereas considering self-destructing shields that are not priced as consumables as an oversight is probably undisputed.
Also, it is not just shields with effects that trigger on blocks. Aggressive Block is effectively a class feature that is limited by shield durability. If you want to use your feat, you are also locked into sturdy shields. But again, that is an issue only for classes that actually have the Shield Block (and Aggressive Block) feats. Everybody else just take their +2 to AC and are happy with it.
Also, it is not just shields with effects that trigger on blocks. Aggressive Block is effectively a class feature that is limited by shield durability. If you want to use your feat, you are also locked into sturdy shields. But again, that is an issue only for classes that actually have the Shield Block (and Aggressive Block) feats. Everybody else just take their +2 to AC and are happy with it.This part also tells me that there is a problem somewhere.
Shield feats that are low level and/or seem build defining are being limited to a single item that can only be gotten at higher level. Meanwhile, other feats are always useful since the moment you get them, and are not reliant on the GM giving you exactly 1 weapon at the right level.
That is completely reliant on proper context. There are plenty of Feats that rely on specific prerequisites to be fulfilled at early levels; shields are not special in this regard in any way. Plenty of the Shields and materials are Common and Uncommon. You can count on one hand how many are Rare.
In the CRB alone there are 19 weapons that are Uncommon just in the Equipment section alone. The way you are wording it also seems to suggest that builds will come across this issue less often with Weapons or Armor, when nothing really suggests as much.
If we compare Shields to the Weapons and Armor categories respectively, Sturdy Shields can be seen as just Supercharged Potency Runes(which is why some suggest Sturdy Runes). Builds that focus on Specific Shields will come across the same issues as builds that focus on Specific Weapons/Magic Weapons; and this is before getting into the limitations of fighting styles.
If we compare Shields to the Weapons and Armor categories respectively, Sturdy Shields can be seen as just Supercharged Potency Runes(which is why some suggest Sturdy Runes).
The obvious difference here is that potency and property runes aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, decoupling + bonuses from unique weapon properties was a specific change in the transition from PF1 to PF2.
... Would the game be better if you had to pick and choose? If putting a shifting rune on your longsword meant it could never have potency runes and vice versa?
Thankfully they managed to solve the 'one true armour' problem, and weapons are variable enough that greatswords aren't the be-all, end-all of damage dealing either.
For shields, though, there is a lot less variety. If you have the Shield Block feats, it is sturdy shields or nothing. While this is a severe limitation, it is a balancing factor for getting extra damage resistance, and thus 'ablative HP', that non-shield block users simply do not have access to. Compare to armour specialisation, which limits the resistance to 5 for heavy armours with +3 potency runes, but applies to every hit.
Shield hardness, and thus damage mitigation, does not grow lineary with monster damage. Shield HP, and thus how often you even get to use the damage mitigation, also does not keep up.
This is either a design flaw, or deliberate design to emphasise the survivability boost shields offer on the lower levels. The ones where HP are most scarce.
By the way, in one of the other threads, a house rule was proposed that one should split damage, that surpasses shield hardness, evenly between shield and user, the user taking the extra point of damage for odd values. This both improves a shield's durability AND helps with the 'I will only block glancing blows to not wreck my shield' issue.
Shields, that self-destruct upon being used as intended, are broken though.
|
|
For shields, though, there is a lot less variety. If you have the Shield Block feats, it is sturdy shields or nothing. While this is a severe limitation, it is a balancing factor for getting extra damage resistance, and thus 'ablative HP', that non-shield block users simply do not have access to. Compare to armour specialisation, which limits the resistance to 5 for heavy armours with +3 potency runes, but applies to every hit.
Given your statement that I bolded above, what is your answer then for Druids? Should they just ignore their Shield Block class feature? Should they say "screw my Anathema, I'm using a Sturdy Shields anyway"? Should they just use the fragile Wooden shield and bring a backpack full of extras? Or should the DMs house-rule the shield rules so Druids can use their class feature again?
Given your statement that I bolded above, what is your answer then for Druids? Should they just ignore their Shield Block class feature? Should they say "screw my Anathema, I'm using a Sturdy Shields anyway"? Should they just use the fragile Wooden shield and bring a backpack full of extras? Or should the DMs house-rule the shield rules so Druids can use their class feature again?
For shields, though, there is a lot less variety. If you have the Shield Block feats, it is sturdy shields or nothing. While this is a severe limitation, it is a balancing factor for getting extra damage resistance, and thus 'ablative HP', that non-shield block users simply do not have access to. Compare to armour specialisation, which limits the resistance to 5 for heavy armours with +3 potency runes, but applies to every hit.
Probably three ways about it, without going into homebrewing or house rules:
1. Wait for the APG to come out to see if new shield options are given, and see if any are comparable to Sturdy.
2. Wait for errata to see if any HP/BT adjustments are done, or if the errata can provide an explanation for Sturdy having the possibility of being made of non-metal materials.
3. If the APG and next round of errata occur and 1 & 2 don't happen, ask the devs if it's possible for a replacement feature for Shield Block be given to Druids in the next round of errata. Because at that point, it's ridiculous to give Druids a class feat at level 1 that can't be retrained out of and becomes entirely useless after a few levels.
4. Talk to your GM about how darkwood shields appear to have roughly the same stats as steel shields, and say "so can my druid get a darkwood sturdy shield?"
Well obviously, talk to your GM about adjustments if at all possible. But many people don't like how GM-dependent that situation is, so this is more geared for those individuals.
Heck, for a fifth option, use the GMG rules for building magical items and basically make a new shield with Sturdy stats and describe it as being non-metal, like a magically reinforced wooden shield.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When a class grants you Shield Block at level 1 as a feature, I don't think it's intended that you only use it for a few levels and then forget it. You can use shields for that +2 AC perfectly fine without having that feature.