Megistone wrote: 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. That is true.
But it is probably also not intended that Shield Block (without any other feats or specialized equipment to boost it) be so appealing as to make a player feel that choosing not to use a shield at all isn't an equally viable option.
Megistone wrote: 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. Abosolutely not.
Infact if you plan to use it you will go with a shield which can help you handle devastating blow instead of one meant to give supportive features.
It's like go frontline with a padded armor instead of using a more protective armor and then complaining because the armor you started with can't handle blows.
You have been given a possibility.
Champion and the fighter are the perfect example of what shield block is meant for.
- You have 1 reaction per round
- You are available to choose between 2 reactions
- You will use the reaction you think is the best suited for that specific situation ( or your character, since you have a limited pool of feats and so on )
Nobody is forcing you to take a sturdy shield, as well for a non sturdy shield.
What you can argue is that, among sturdy shields, there is no customization, but in terms of balance it's definitely ok ( which is understandable. The less the customization, the more the balance ).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: Infact if you plan to use it you will go with a shield which can help you handle devastating blow instead of one meant to give supportive features You know that the whole point they're trying to make is that Druids get Shield Block but can only use it for the first levels due to the lack of Sturdy Wooden Shields, right? You even admitted yourself that this shouldn't be intended, and then tried to change the subject back to fighters and champions.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: Zapp wrote: Again, reskin "utility shields" as icons, or relics, or something. You still hold it in one hand, and it still wards off attacks (the AC bonus). Think "priest presenting a cross to a vampire".
You just don't think in terms of shield block, which in turn means you don't get super annoyed by the realization your shield would break if used as a shield (=blocking incoming attacks), losing you thousands of gold.
You can use it as a homerule, but the fact you can't follow up with the actual balance in terms of shields is not a flaw in the game.
If you go with a shield not meant for the combat is not a game issue, you know.
It's like buying a crystal shield and complain that it's not resistant as your steel shield. Not surprising at all. You tell that to yourself. Doesn't change the fact that these threads, several hundred posts long, disagree with you.
Having most shields be useless for blocking is a huge issue for many players, full stop. Filling the Treasure chapter with shields "not meant for the combat" feels plain ridiculous.
I suggest the easiest solution is to reskin these shields into obviously-fragile items such as relics or icons.
This doesn't change gameplay. It cannot affect balance. But it solves the problem.
dmerceless wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Infact if you plan to use it you will go with a shield which can help you handle devastating blow instead of one meant to give supportive features You know that the whole point they're trying to make is that Druids get Shield Block but can only use it for the first levels due to the lack of Sturdy Wooden Shields, right? You even admitted yourself that this shouldn't be intended, and then tried to change the subject back to fighters and champions. I deliberately said that druids are not meant to tank and spank, so the one trying to twist the discussion seems to be you.
I agree on the other hand that the fact druids have been given shield block was a bad choice, since they will be using it only during the first levels.
But again, druids are not meant to go melee ( unless shapeshifters, and because of that no need to rely on shields ).
I happened to play both AoA and EC, both with druids, and no one dared to deliberately go melee ( apart from the shapeshifter starting from lvl 3 or 4 ), simply because the class was not meant for ( and cantrips were way more better ).
People could continue complaining that it's unfair, but for me the issue lies ahead.
They shouldn't have given the druid the shield block reaction, but instead something related to the order, like they did with storm order ( shapeshift could have been made a reaction to be honest ).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote:
I deliberately said that druids are not meant to tank and spank, so the one trying to twist the discussion seems to be you.
I agree on the other hand that the fact druids have been given shield block was a bad choice, since they will be using it only during the first levels.
But again, druids are not meant to go melee ( unless shapeshifters, and because of that no need to rely on shields ).
I think you have a different opinion here than most regarding druids role.
Druids and clerics history have been as the original in combat hybrid casters (7 lvl spells for the win!) And why they can wear armor and shields. In pf2 it doesn't seem very optimal to attempt melee without wildshape but it's supposed to be viable from class history.
Gorignak227 wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
I deliberately said that druids are not meant to tank and spank, so the one trying to twist the discussion seems to be you.
I agree on the other hand that the fact druids have been given shield block was a bad choice, since they will be using it only during the first levels.
But again, druids are not meant to go melee ( unless shapeshifters, and because of that no need to rely on shields ).
I think you have a different opinion here than most regarding druids role.
Druids and clerics history have been as the original in combat hybrid casters (7 lvl spells for the win!) And why they can wear armor and shields. In pf2 it doesn't seem very optimal to attempt melee without wildshape but it's supposed to be viable from class history. No, it's you who are trying to twist again my words.
Druids as clerics are able to deflect and make a good use of shields. As well for other classes like barbarians or even ranger if they decide to do.
What Druids are not supposed to do is to tank and absorb heavy blow.
This is what I am saying ( not that druids or cleric can't use shield to defend themselves ).
Now that we do have a significant difference between AC and Shield block, it is clear how not fighter/champion classes deal with blows.
You have to imagine that raising a shield doesn't mean that you are stationary, but that you make use of it to deflect blows, or even absorb all of them if the attack "misses".
If you imagine druids like frontliner which tank to absorb the damage with their shield it's up to you ( as well for any other classes but champion/fighter, allowed to wear a shield and use shieldblock because it's convenient ).
Also, if you think in terms of mechanics, part of the fighter dps rely on AOO, so let's say all fighters will use their AOO in combat to do damage.
Then at lvl 8 they have to expend ( champions too ofc ) a class feat to take an extra shield block, which will be used to shield block.
They will have the same shield blocks as a druid/cleric, but they had to invest 1 Class feat, while a druid or a cleric wouldn't.
In terms of mechanics, leaving apart RP, I agree that any reasonable person would go with the setup which will grant him ( or his party ) the best chances of survival ( which includes using your last action to raise you sturdy shield and save your reaction to deal with a blow ), but on the other hand it's clear it will become a mess in terms of RP.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Who said druids are not meant to tank blows?
Druids were a 3/4 BAB class with d8 HD, Medium Armor and Shield proficiency. They had personal combat buffs and self healing. In always, shapes, and forms Druids was one of the tankiest class in the game.
Clerics too had a very high melee combat presence with 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, Medium Armor and Shield proficiency. With the best healing in the game and plenty of melee attack powers.
This is why they were given Shield Block. Their original role was to tank and act as support while the Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, etc. would focus on becoming the striker.
**************
* P.S. Cloistered Cleric is an Archetype of cleric. The "Warpriest" is the true Cleric, going a long tradition.
The name "Warpriest" honestly should had been chosen more carefully. I really wanted the Warpriest class to come back in a more meaningful way, but I doubt that will happen.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So, Druids are not supposed to use shield block, in spite of the developers giving them a feat exactly for that. Yeah.
We will get to the point where we consider the whole game system an error, except for the printed shield stats which are perfect.
Temperans wrote: Who said druids are not meant to tank blows?
Druids were a 3/4 BAB class with d8 HD, Medium Armor and Shield proficiency. They had personal combat buffs and self healing. In always, shapes, and forms Druids was one of the tankiest class in the game.
Clerics too had a very high melee combat presence with 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, Medium Armor and Shield proficiency. With the best healing in the game and plenty of melee attack powers.
This is why they were given Shield Block. Their original role was to tank and act as support while the Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, etc. would focus on becoming the striker.
**************
* P.S. Cloistered Cleric is an Archetype of cleric. The "Warpriest" is the true Cleric, going a long tradition.
The name "Warpriest" honestly should had been chosen more carefully. I really wanted the Warpriest class to come back in a more meaningful way, but I doubt that will happen.
That's why time passes and things change.
- Barbarians now are no longer tied to medium armors.
- Characters can't build up AC or ST being immune or hyper resistant to attacks.
- Different classes have now High AC, while only the fighter has high attack.
- Hybrid classes got nerfed to the ground ( here is feel the opposite compared to you. I am extremely glad they tuned down hybrid classes ).
and so on.
@Megistone/Temperans However, while on the one hand I feel peculiar that they specified "metal" or "steel" in every single shield, and could be that they wanted to do it to prevent druids from being too tanky, on the other hand the fact they gave them the shield block feat is somehow off.
Personally I would at least make them able to use supportive shields.
The thing is, if you would ask my warpriest if I'd rather have the Shield Block or Toughness general feat I would probably opt for the later.
Toughness lets me use either no shield (e.g. Gorum) or any shield for AC and starting at level 5 to 6 also has the same benefits as one block using a non-sturdy shield. Toughness is even on against spells or other effects that can not be blocked or when you did not raise the shield at all.
So I'd probably happily go spell guard shield + toughness or lions shield + toughness or any other of the nice shields and simply forget about the shield block feat and blocking (and potentially losing money) because Toughness already did this for me before even spending an action or reaction.
Ubertron_X wrote: The thing is, if you would ask my warpriest if I'd rather have the Shield Block or Toughness general feat I would probably opt for the later.
Toughness lets me use either no shield (e.g. Gorum) or any shield for AC and starting at level 5 to 6 also has the same benefits as one block using a non-sturdy shield. Toughness is even on against spells or other effects that can not be blocked or when you did not raise the shield at all.
So I'd probably happily go spell guard shield + toughness or lions shield + toughness or any other of the nice shields and simply forget about the shield block feat and blocking (and potentially losing money) because Toughness already did this for me before even spending an action or reaction.
Agree on toughness.
Given how hardness/block work is probably one of the "real deal".
HumbleGamer wrote: That's why time passes and things change. Druids still get the shield block feature. What are they supposed to do with it if not block with a shield?
I think a lot of nuance in the shield system is being overlooked for the sake of simplification in this discussion.
After rereading the shield section and the special materials section I've run into a number of questions, and have a few thoughts on the whole issue of Shields. I've also decided on how I am going to interpret the rules we have for any game that I run.
The first question that I have is whether the designers intended the rules to allow us to make magical shields out of superior materials (Mithril, Dragonhide etc.) I suspect the answer to that is Yes due to the whole section about crafting items out of said materials. However if the answer is No, then why not?
Assuming the answer to the above question is Yes, my next question is how restrictive is that material replacement intended to be? Can I use any material to replace the base material of a magical shield? In other words, Can I use Wood or Darkwood to make a Sturdy Shield or is the intention that only another metal can replace the base steel of the shield?
Another question I have is why is the level 4 sturdy shield the only magical shield option between levels 1 to 6? It feels like that is setting the player's expectations that all shields are going to be that durable and could very well lead to disappointment and dissatisfaction at later levels. I realize there are also Cold Iron and Silver shield option starting at level 2 but my point still stands. Now, if the answer to the previous question is that only metals can replace steel, then this creates a situation where the Druid has zero shield upgrade options until level 8. Is this the designer's intent? If not (and it is my belief it is not) then I have to assume that any material can be used to replace the base wood or steel of a shield. Under this logic, I should theoretically be able to replace the steel of a Sturdy Shield with wood.
Now, this is all speculation and theory on my part but I think allowing shield to be crafted of any material (even if you have to special order it) would go along way to fixing some of the perceived problems with shields. That isn't to say that the numbers shouldn't be looked at and adjusted but I don't think the system is as broken as people fear it.
For example a Lion's Shield can be turned into more of a blocking shield by level 8 by crafting it out of Adamantine and (if I understand the rules right) it should only cost about 55 extra gold. that would raise the stats of the shield to 10 Hardness 20 HP (10 BT) which is half of the HP(BT) of the level 7 Sturdy shield and the same Hardness. The Sturdy Shield would cost 360gp and the Adamantine Lion's Shield would cost 300gp
I don't think this works in every instance for every shield, which is why I think the shield rules need more tweaking, but I think shields are in a better place than popular opinion suggests.
Draco18s wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: That's why time passes and things change. Druids still get the shield block feature. What are they supposed to do with it if not block with a shield? We already discuss this.
On the one hand we have druids with shieldblock, on the other hand all shields which state that they are made out of metal.
I see many possibilities:
- They got wrong giving shieldblock to druids
- They got wrong writing down the shields descritpion
- Shields were revised in a hurry before the release and they messed up some stuff ( talking about messed up stuff, also other descriptions and abilities are no that clear ).
- Etc...
Even if Shield are supposed to be able to be crafted out of other materials, there are no rules (or at least clear rules) on how to handle the stat changes.
And the problem still remains that the only special material shield with comparable stats to a level 4 sturdy shield is the uncommon level 16 adamantine shield. Which as I have stated previously cost 88 times more than the level 4 shield.
So numbers definitely need to be looked at, because that scalling seems like a glaring error.
Temperans wrote: Even if Shield are supposed to be able to be crafted out of other materials, there are no rules (or at least clear rules) on how to handle the stat changes.
And the problem still remains that the only special material shield with comparable stats to a level 4 sturdy shield is the uncommon level 16 adamantine shield. Which as I have stated previously cost 88 times more than the level 4 shield.
So numbers definitely need to be looked at, because that scalling seems like a glaring error.
Unless the correct interpretation is what somebody ( can't remember who ) here on the forum proposed.
That we have to sum up material stats and price with the specific shield stat and price.
For example:
Sturdy shield (supreme) - Cost 40000
Hardness 20, HP 160, and BT 80
Compared to
Spellguard Shield - Cost 260
Hardness 6, HP 24, BT 12
+
Orichalcum Shield - Cost 13200
Hardness 16, HP 64, BT 32
=
Hardness 22, HP 88, BT 44.
___
But then the cost would be completely off.
First off, I already stated that I think Shield numbers are not where they need to be. Second; There are rules for making magic items out of special materials, they are on page 578, although I agree with you that they aren't clear and direct enough in their intent or execution. And yes, they need clear-cut rules on how to handle the stat changes to magical shields made of special materials
Finally, you are being slightly disingenuous comparing a magic item that is the best in it's category at every level it appears with a non-magical (although still special) material that is mostly there to boost less over tuned options. TO be honest, I don't like that Sturdy Shields are common in their current state because they essentially invalidate every other option in the eyes of a lot of players, particularly those that gravitate to pure numbers min/maxing math.
I personally feel that no other shield should be anywhere near as good at soaking black damage as the Sturdy Shield. and even then Adamantine comes relatively close Plus gaining a free Adamantine weapon in the mix plus whatever other magical ability you pair it with (Lions, Spellguard etc.) And generally cheaper than a Sturdy Shield of equivalent level. A level 16 Sturdy Shield costs 10,000gp. A Level 16 Adamantine Arrow-Catching shield costs 5750gp. Whether or not the stuff you get in lieu of the 4 Hardness and obscene blocking HP(BT) from the Sturdy shield is a value proposition each player needs to make for themselves.
EDIT: saw a typo and wrong number so did a quick fix.
How did you get that value? Because a level 16 adamantine shield cost 8.8k gp, while the level 8 adamantine shield costs 440 gp. Meanwhile, the level 11 Arrow-Catching Shild cost 1.35k gp.
I dont see how you got 5.75k gp, and I dont see any mention on how combining magic shield with precious material would be priced. If I missed it please post it.
Also, I have never stated that non-magical shields should be as good as Sturdy Shields. What I have stated is that the price/stat ratio of non magical shield is too too high. The rules say this: Shields wrote: Use the sturdy shields as benchmarks for the best possible shield Hardness, HP, and BT for a shield of that level. Your new shield should have less than those benchmarks since it also does something else, and you can use the magnitude of the reduction to build room for creative defensive abilities. It tells us Sturdy Shields are the best at their level, and that special abilities make up for the drop in stats. But special material (with exception of Orichalcum) shields have no special ability, no comparable stats, but have roughly the same price.
I was under the impression that when adding a material to an object you just used the crafting requirements cost. So I was pricing it a 4.4K gp plus the cost of the magic shield. I fully admit that I could be wrong on doing that and if so....well there is another thing that needs a bit more clarity. Still in my example that puts the Adamantine Arro-Catcher at a few hundred gp over 10K with is basically in line with a level 16 Sturdy shield, and still almost 4 times cheaper than a level 19 one. Blarg, it still doesn't feel good.
I have not been able to find that quote in the book. Can I get a page reference? I really don't think Sturdy shields should be considered the standard for their level, they are just too powerful. And special materials do have special abilities. Adamantine, Cold Iron and and Silver all count as weapons of the material when shield bashing, Darkwood reduces bulk, Mithril reduces bulk and counts as a silver weapon for bashes and Dragonhide makes the shield immune to a specific elemental type. What you actually think of those effects is a personal value judgement.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: I see many possibilities:
- They got wrong giving shieldblock to druids
- They got wrong writing down the shields descritpion
- Shields were revised in a hurry before the release and they messed up some stuff ( talking about messed up stuff, also other descriptions and abilities are no that clear ).
- Etc...
So your defense for (your own assertion that) "druids aren't tanks" is "the rules are misprinted"? Did I understand that correctly?
HumbleGamer wrote: That we have to sum up material stats and price with the specific shield stat and price. Summing the stats makes no sense. You didn't subtract out the fact that it was made out of steel to begin with.
And we don't know how to subtract out the steel because we don't have the steel statistics for anything other than standard grade steel (and the spellguard is almost certainly made out of high grade steel (we think)).
Valentius wrote: I have not been able to find that quote in the book. Can I get a page reference? I really don't think Sturdy shields should be considered the standard for their level, they are just too powerful. Its from the Gamemastery Guide pg.84. I found it on aonprd when I searched "shields".
Also according to that quote. Sturdy Shields are fine and are not too powerful. Its the other shields that are underperforming, given how other shields that are ment for blocking fail to do their job properly.
Temperans wrote: Valentius wrote: I have not been able to find that quote in the book. Can I get a page reference? I really don't think Sturdy shields should be considered the standard for their level, they are just too powerful. Its from the Gamemastery Guide pg.84. I found it on aonprd when I searched "shields".
Also according to that quote. Sturdy Shields are fine and are not too powerful. Its the other shields that are underperforming, given how other shields that are ment for blocking fail to do their job properly. This is the phrase, just for reference:
Gamemastery guide PG 84 wrote:
Use the sturdy shields as benchmarks for the best possible
shield Hardness, HP, and BT for a shield of that level. Your
new shield should have less than those benchmarks since it
also does something else, and you can use the magnitude of
the reduction to build room for creative defensive abilities.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: On the one hand we have druids with shieldblock, on the other hand all shields which state that they are made out of metal.
I see many possibilities:
- They got wrong giving shieldblock to druids
My hypothesis on this: a less than well thought-through change between the playtest rules and the real rules.
In the playtest, a number of classes got shield proficiency: clerics, druids, fighters, and paladins. If you wielded a shield, you would use the lower of your armor and shield proficiencies to determine AC. Shield block was a basic action that anyone could do if they had Raised a Shield.
In the real rules, shield proficiency got removed, but instead they made Shield Block a feat. This feat was given as a bonus feat to Champions, Warpriest clerics, Druids, and Fighters - the same classes that had previously gotten shield proficiency.
In the playtest, druids were expected to use shields (unless they had reason not to), but probably not to block with them. But in the real rules, that just translated to Shield block despite them basically being unable to do so in practice.
HumbleGamer wrote: Draco18s wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: That's why time passes and things change. Druids still get the shield block feature. What are they supposed to do with it if not block with a shield? We already discuss this.
On the one hand we have druids with shieldblock, on the other hand all shields which state that they are made out of metal.
I see many possibilities:
- They got wrong giving shieldblock to druids
- They got wrong writing down the shields descritpion
- Shields were revised in a hurry before the release and they messed up some stuff ( talking about messed up stuff, also other descriptions and abilities are no that clear ).
- Etc... I have another possibility:
- They changed the Druid Anathemas at the last minute, and formerly the restriction said "no metal armor, but metal weapons and shields are ok".
This is certainly a possibility IMO. Another is that maybe the APG will introduce the Ironwood spell from PF1e, to allow wooden shields and items to become as hard as metal.
Yeah, that paragraph in the GMG is supremely unhelpful...
Regarding Driuds and Shields... the material entry for Dragonhide states that it is hard enough to replace steel in item creation. So theoretically the argument could be made that a Druid can use any "metal" shield if they get one made of dragonhide (and also use a dragonhide Breastplate but that is a different topic). That is one loophole, although it would require the GM to okay it... Not ideal.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
What would the stat of a Sturdy Dragonhide Shield even be? I mean this the stats for the level 8 dragonhide shield, Hardness 4, HP 16, and BT 8. Which is worse than the level 0 Steel Shield.
Again the rules for making magic and special material shields are not helpful what so ever.
* P.S. Yes I know the benefit of Dragonhide is the elemental resistance. I am just pointing how the rules as written are not helpful, even when trying to make them work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Draco18s wrote:
So your defense for (your own assertion that) "druids aren't tanks" is "the rules are misprinted"? Did I understand that correctly?
No, I simply said that I don't see druids as somebody who block a heavy blow with a shield, even if they make a good use with it.
And I marked the fact that it's my opinion plenty of times, so you could let it go.
The fact somewhere there could be an error ( if we exclude the possibility that druids are allowed to just use the wooden shield you get at lvl 1 ), whatever the error will be, seems to me the right interpretation
Samurai wrote: I have another possibility:
- They changed the Druid Anathemas at the last minute, and formerly the restriction said "no metal armor, but metal weapons and shields are ok".
This is certainly a possibility IMO. Another is that maybe the APG will introduce the Ironwood spell from PF1e, to allow wooden shields and items to become as hard as metal.
I forgot about this one ( used to see druids tied to stuff like that since the beginning ). It's definitely a possibility ( Barbarians also now doesn't care about the type of armor they wear ) good job!
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
No, I simply said that I don't see druids as somebody who block a heavy blow with a shield, even if they make a good use with it.
Is that a good argument for any sort of balance though? That it doens't fit your own personal vision of what the class should do?
Squiggit wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
No, I simply said that I don't see druids as somebody who block a heavy blow with a shield, even if they make a good use with it.
Is that a good argument for any sort of balance though? That it doens't fit your own personal vision of what the class should do? I just said my opinion towards druids ( how I see them in terms of roleplay ) when I said "I can hardly imagine a druid fight the way a champion or a fighter do", but yes, I recognize that drudis are currently top tier in terms of performance.
Consider it this way
"As things currently are, I am happy since druids are forbidden from using shieldblock as fighters or champions
Samurai wrote: I have another possibility:
- They changed the Druid Anathemas at the last minute, and formerly the restriction said "no metal armor, but metal weapons and shields are ok".
The playtest still had metal shields as anathema.
As I've suggested over in the other shield thread, I suggest as a minimal fix you reskin frgile shields as items whose fragility isn't as incongruous:
If you were to wield a sacred relic or a holy icon (a small wooden "painting" of your god or his avatars) this would instantly - with zero mechanical changes - resolve the issue many of us are having.
You would still hold it in one hand. It would still give you an AC bonus. You could still block with it.
You would just not feel as stupid when you elect to "block with your face" to save your item, since that item is now not a shield, but a religious relic or maybe the urn of your grandmother.
Shields sturdy enough to survive blocking are still described as being shields.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: As I've suggested over in the other shield thread, I suggest as a minimal fix you reskin frgile shields as items whose fragility isn't as incongruous:
If you were to wield a sacred relic or a holy icon (a small wooden "painting" of your god or his avatars) this would instantly - with zero mechanical changes - resolve the issue many of us are having.
You would still hold it in one hand. It would still give you an AC bonus. You could still block with it.
You would just not feel as stupid when you elect to "block with your face" to save your item, since that item is now not a shield, but a religious relic or maybe the urn of your grandmother.
Shields sturdy enough to survive blocking are still described as being shields.
I can get behind these alterna-shields being things that can grant me non-blocking magic effects while also being things that I don't want to attempt blocking. But why is the urn of my grandmother giving me an AC bonus? Unless we're calling that another magical effect and not an inherent property of the urn.
Temperans wrote: What would the stat of a Sturdy Dragonhide Shield even be? I mean this the stats for the level 8 dragonhide shield, Hardness 4, HP 16, and BT 8. Which is worse than the level 0 Steel Shield.
Again the rules for making magic and special material shields are not helpful what so ever.
* P.S. Yes I know the benefit of Dragonhide is the elemental resistance. I am just pointing how the rules as written are not helpful, even when trying to make them work.
The simplest answer, not having much to any guidance from the books, would be to give it the stats of a Sturdy shield. From my perspective, the enchantments used to make a sturdy shield aren't changing, just the base material you are using it on. Considering the Sturdy enchantment overrides the base steel shield stats, why wouldn't it do the same for another material? That is how I would rule that as a GM.
Valentius wrote: Considering the Sturdy enchantment overrides the base steel shield stats, why wouldn't it do the same for another material? That is how I would rule that as a GM. So a sturdy wooden shield, a sturdy silver shield, and a sturdy adamantine shield all have the same stats?
I think most people would object.
Is your meaning that you object, or you just think some people would be salty? Because frankly, I don't care about the opinions of people who aren't in this conversation, because I'm not able to discuss the topic with them. Now if you object, I'd like to hear why, and I'd like to hear what you would do at your table.
When it comes to non-standard shields (or anything really) the question I ask, is "Why would someone want to make a shield out of a special material?" I've come up with 3 answers. 1. Better Defense, 2. To make it out of a material that lets them use it (Druids), and 3. To take advantage of it's special property. The answer might be a combination of all 3 of these.
In the case of the Sturdy shield, the GMG says it's the max a shield can be so really, the only reason you'd make it out of a non standard material is if you are a Druid looking for a wooden, Darkwooden or Dragonhide version or you really want whatever trait the material will get you. I see no need to lower the stats on considering the cost and effort the player is putting in to have it made.
So yeah, I'm gonna rule if you make a magical shield out of non-standard material you get the better of the 2 sets of stats. At least until more clear cut rules are printed.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Staffan Johansson wrote: Samurai wrote: I have another possibility:
- They changed the Druid Anathemas at the last minute, and formerly the restriction said "no metal armor, but metal weapons and shields are ok".
The playtest still had metal shields as anathema. And honestly I don't get why they are allowed to use a big, two-handed metal weapon, but not a metal buckler.
Valentius wrote: Is your meaning that you object, or you just think some people would be salty? Because frankly, I don't care about the opinions of people who aren't in this conversation, because I'm not able to discuss the topic with them. Ok, easy:
Why would an adamantine shield have the same durability as the same shield made out of steel?
The magic should make the same increases to it.
Would it be more expensive? Sure, I'll certainly agree to that. Would that mean that at the same cost the stats would be similar? Sure.
But simply going "oh you can have [this exact shield] made out of [whatever material you want]" just...doesn't work for me.
Quote: Now if you object, I'd like to hear why, and I'd like to hear what you would do at your table. We're playing Pathfinder 1.
Draco18s wrote: Valentius wrote: Considering the Sturdy enchantment overrides the base steel shield stats, why wouldn't it do the same for another material? That is how I would rule that as a GM. So a sturdy wooden shield, a sturdy silver shield, and a sturdy adamantine shield all have the same stats?
I think most people would object. I'd be in favor of adding both the Shield materials and Sturdy Shield as modifiers. So it would say "Use the Steel Shield or Wooden Shield as your base, and then increase Hardness and BT/HP by X amounts."
For example, if you create your shield out of standard Adamantine, you add +5 Hardness and +20 HP/+10 BT to the base steel's 5 Hardness, 20 HP/10 BT. If you then add a Minor Sturdy rune to your Adamantine shield, that adds another +3 Hardness, and +44 HP/+22 BT.
By themselves, these rules would recreate a standard Adamantine shield or a Miner Sturdy Shield, but they could also be used together (You can have 1 material Property change, 1 Fundamental rune, and 1 effect rune that would give an ability like Reflecting or Spellguard.)
So the Minor Sturdy Standard Adamantine Shield would have a total Hardness of 13, 84 HP/42 BT.
Samurai wrote: I'd be in favor of adding both the Shield materials and Sturdy Shield as modifiers. So it would say "Use the Steel Shield or Wooden Shield as your base, and then increase Hardness and BT/HP by X amounts." Sure, I'd be down with that.
We just can't reverse engineer the stats from the data available (because all the other magic shields have erratic stats and we don't know the stats of high grade steel, or what the Sturdy enchantment does: is it additive or multiplicative?).
Draco18s wrote: Samurai wrote: I'd be in favor of adding both the Shield materials and Sturdy Shield as modifiers. So it would say "Use the Steel Shield or Wooden Shield as your base, and then increase Hardness and BT/HP by X amounts." Sure, I'd be down with that.
We just can't reverse engineer the stats from the data available (because all the other magic shields have erratic stats and we don't know the stats of high grade steel, or what the Sturdy enchantment does: is it additive or multiplicative?). I would say additive, the way pretty much everything is in the game.
And it's true that the other magic shields have some off numbers. We cold either say that those numbers are now in error and use the new system, or the specific effect runes also include an additive bonus as well (So the Reflective Rune/property carries the Reflective ability, and also increases the Hardness by +1, the HP by +16, and BT by +8.
If there is some typical trend in the bonuses (I see many if the magic shields say Hardness 6 instead of 5, for instance), then we could say that is the result of the shield needing to be magical before it can accept more abilities, and just make it a constant of the new rules and "correct" the shields stats that don't follow that rule, or explain while that shield is different...
I don't want to add a lot of complexity to my game, but I would like shields to be more durable and less breakable. If I just said that, as a house rule, shields only take half of the damage they normally would take under RAW, wouldn't that work without a lot of rules overhead or changing lots of numbers and prices? Is there something this approach would unbalance (other than perhaps making sturdy shields less likely to ever break)? It feels like a fairly simple way to increase shield durability across the board, if that's all I'm after. But maybe there's something I'm missing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Technotrooper wrote: I don't want to add a lot of complexity to my game, but I would like shields to be more durable and less breakable. If I just said that, as a house rule, shields only take half of the damage they normally would take under RAW, wouldn't that work without a lot of rules overhead or changing lots of numbers and prices? Is there something this approach would unbalance (other than perhaps making sturdy shields less likely to ever break)? It feels like a fairly simple way to increase shield durability across the board, if that's all I'm after. But maybe there's something I'm missing. You should definitely do the math by running hypothetical scenarios.
Just reading the idea, the first thing that came into my mind is the champion shield specialization, which adds 50% extra hp and +2 hardness ( at lvl 20 it would be 100% extra hp instead of 50%, but it would be late game so we can leave it behind ).
Second thing you should think about is comparing sturdy shields with non sturdy shields.
I posted an example of scenario in the other thread but I can link it here too
Quote: Something like:
a) Lvl 7 characters ( The level I guess those shields would be available. I used the Sturdy Minor because the lesse was lvl 7, and characters hardly find an item of their lvl. They are likely to find a slightly lower level item )
b) Sturdy Shield (Minor-L4) (hardness 8, HP 64, BT 32)
c) Spellguard Shield (L6) (Hardness 6, HP 24, BT 12)
Is this a reasonable scenario?
If, we have then to decide 5 monsters
- lvl 5 Basilisk ( 2d8+4 piercing ) Average DMG: 14
- lvl 6 Cave Bear ( 2d10+6 piercing ) Average DMG: 18
- lvl 7 Hill Giant ( 1d10+14 bludgeoning ) Average DMG: 20
- lvl 8 Chimera ( 2d6+9 piercing + 2d6 ) Average DMG: 25
- lvl 9 Efreti ( 2d6+11 slashing + 2d6 ) Average DMG: 27
Now, since you don't want to add complexity ( and I totally share the same thought ), you could run some calculations here.
If for you would be reasonable that a non sturdy shield could last 1 or 2 hits without breaking, while a sturdy shield could last more than double the amount, then it could go.
Just remember that the lvl 6 spellguard shield stats are "more or less" the stats you will find in many other non sturdy shield, so this change could probably ( I didn't do any math but just reasoning in terms of monsters' damage progression ) become less effective the more you proceed in the game.
Technotrooper wrote: I don't want to add a lot of complexity to my game, but I would like shields to be more durable and less breakable. If I just said that, as a house rule, shields only take half of the damage they normally would take under RAW, wouldn't that work without a lot of rules overhead or changing lots of numbers and prices? Is there something this approach would unbalance (other than perhaps making sturdy shields less likely to ever break)? It feels like a fairly simple way to increase shield durability across the board, if that's all I'm after. But maybe there's something I'm missing. When my DM read the shield rules, he thought that it meant you reduce the damage by the Hardness and then split what remained between the shield and the character being protected, 50% to each. This has been working for us so far, and is similar to your thought to reduce the damage by half, except both the shield and the target both get the half deduction (they share the total damage after Hardness.)
One benefit of doing things this way is that it helps reduce the common idea of taking strong hits yourself to save the shield, since both of you get to take only half damage each.
Tectorman wrote: But why is the urn of my grandmother giving me an AC bonus? Lol.
Yes, that's *exactly* the important takeaway from my suggestion :D
(Just kidding. Everybody knows grandmothers spiritually protect their grandchildren even after death. Yes, even when cremated :)
Reducing damage by DR and splitting it in half, as opposed to doubling as I read it, would indeed help shields last longer before breaking. That along with some HP increases for shields that should be made for blocking but lack HP (arrow catching, adamantine, etc.) should fix the problem of not having enough options for blocking shield.
The easy method for increasing HP, is to just add half of the current HP. Using adamantine shields as an example, the level 8 one goes from 40 to 60 and the level 16 one goes from 52 to 78. Compared to Sturdy Shield's 80 for level 7 and 136 for level 16.
**********************
Something I noticed with that brief experiment that further complicates and shows more weirdness. The level 8 adamantine shield with 50% more HP has 25% less HP than the level 7 Sturdy shield. But the level 16 adamantine shield with 50% more HP has ~42.647% less HP than the level 16 Sturdy shield.
It would be interesting to see a graph of how the different shields scale, to compare the rate of change.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Since I was really interested I did a quick graph.
The spread of values is quite interesting. Specially the trends:
* Lion's and Jawbreaker have stats that fit with Adamantine shields.
* Force, Dragonslayer's, and Nethysian have stats that fit with Cold Iron shields.
* Forge Warden, Floating, and Arrow Catching have stats that fit with Mithral and Darkwood shields.
* Reforging and Unbreakable dont seem to follow any trends.
* Reducing bulk by 1 is worth 9 HP compared to Cold Iron shields, and 20 hp compared to Adamantine shields.
* Finally, not including the outliers, special material and magic shields roughly scale at ~1.5 HP/level (exact values varies for magic shield). Meanwhile, Sturdy shields scale at ~6.32 HP/level (+/- 3 HP).
*********
* P.S. Silver shields are just 1 HP better than Mithral and Darkwood.
And I didn't take into account hardness which would add another layer. This was meant to be something quick but still took ~1.5 hours.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote: Since I was really interested I did a quick graph.
The spread of values is quite interesting. Specially the trends:
* Lion's and Jawbreaker have stats that fit with Adamantine shields.
* Force, Dragonslayer's, and Nethysian have stats that fit with Cold Iron shields.
* Forge Warden, Floating, and Arrow Catching have stats that fit with Mithral and Darkwood shields.
* Reforging and Unbreakable dont seem to follow any trends.
* Reducing bulk by 1 is worth 9 HP compared to Cold Iron shields, and 20 hp compared to Adamantine shields.
* Finally, not including the outliers, special material and magic shields roughly scale at ~1.5 HP/level (exact values varies for magic shield). Meanwhile, Sturdy shields scale at ~6.32 HP/level (+/- 3 HP).
*********
* P.S. Silver shields are just 1 HP better than Mithral and Darkwood.
And I didn't take into account hardness which would add another layer. This was meant to be something quick but still took ~1.5 hours.
VERY interesting. This graph definitely deserves some more analysis. Thank you!
|
