Theres also a difference between -
I'm playing this as intended, and its broken.
And
I'm playing this how I want and expect it to work, and its broken.
In the second case, it may be better to adjust your expectations to match what the game intends rather than ask the game to bend to your expectations.
Certainly, you're more likely to see errata and adjustments to bring things in line with intent than player expectation.
My contention is that when shields are used as intended, they work - more relavently to this thread, the Sturdy Shield is good for the game because it does what it is intended to by allowing people to play exception-builds that want to shield block more often. The intent is that Sturdy Shields are the exception to how Shield Block is designed (as a minor bonus), and not the rule.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really feel like it's status as a general feat has any bearing on whether it's niche or not, kinda the opposite in fact. That means shield block as a base is easy to access and can be used by a variety of builds. There is also extensive feat support of fighters and champions, further solidifying this as a significant build-around.
Edit: Also, I think a lot of people are arguing from a position of what they think is fun. If shields function within the context of the game but a lot of people consider them boring and restrictive, I'd say that's still an issue.
I don't really feel like it's status as a general feat has any bearing on whether it's niche or not, kinda the opposite in fact. That means shield block as a base is easy to access and can be used by a variety of builds. There is also extensive feat support of fighters and champions, further solidifying this as a significant build-around.
As a single General Feat, it is a minor benefit. Its comparable to Toughness, where you receive extra hitpoints, but with significant limitations.
If you choose to specialize and invest a number of feats into it, it becomes a more significant feature that you can build around... and there is a specific item to use to make your build work.
That is always the nature of specialization.
The above does not sound like a broken set of game mechanics to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Humble, your post hits on a core issue.
Do I think some (but not all) players would find it fun to have a free source of low-risk damage reduction in the form of shield block regardless of shield chosen?
Clearly.
Is that more power for the sake of more power, for a strategy that is already very powerful?
I absolutely think so.
The Spellguard shield is actually a really good example, because both a Shield Character I would design and my non-hypothetical Cleric would want one even if it were hardness 0, 1 hitpoint. A +2 to saves that can't be replicated elsewhere really is that valuable, AND it gives me +2 AC? If it were also adequate for blocking even once or twice, I'd never even consider taking a shield only good for Blocking over it. There'd be no justifying the opportunity cost of giving up the +2 to saves.
I wholeheartedly think the middle ground shields need to be in the vein of the Spined Shield, Dragonslayer Shield, or hypothetical fixed Arrowcatcher Shield - worse than a Sturdy in General, but with a functional gimmick where they provide a conditional advantage to blocking with them.
The Shields like the Reforging Shield are effectively just an "alternative" Sturdy Shield, redundant in the context of the core rulebook and at home in expansion content.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So where is the problem? The goal of the core book is to make sure people have the options they need to succeed - the Sturdy shield does that. No one needs multiple options in the core book to cater to their niche build. Those are a luxury, not a design issue.This seems a little uncharitable to me. Shield blocking is hardly a niche build, or at least not considered one by many if this thread is anything to go by. Fighters and Champions are both classes with highlighted shield-blocking builds, and the availability of the general feat means other classes can dabble in it as well.
Why should a shield user get a) the highest AC, b) the ability to block with a shield every turn without worrying about shield HP for a solid duration, and c) special shield abilities on top of all of that?
I don't believe you should be able to have all of those at once. If you want the best defensive proficiencies, you should have to give up utility in shield effects. The opposite should also be true - if you want utility shield effects, you should have to give up having the ultimate blocking power.
The opposite should also be true - if you want utility shield effects, you should have to give up having the ultimate blocking power.
Can’t say I disagree there. It does, at least, makes sense to me that effect-shields lose ultimate blocking power. I’d personally like it if all shields had some blocking power though, being able to take at least a single moderate hit without disintegrating.
Something to think about is if the opposite of the sturdy shield being "to good" for blocking would be if utility shields maybe "too good" for not blocking.
As an example lets take the Spellguard shield and a Warpriest vs a Cloistered Cleric. They unanimously agree that this is the best shield to use, both for AC and for the bonus on saves and both are start using it exclusively from level 6 onward.
For the Cloistered Cleric this is great throughout all levels from 6 to 20 and he is more than happy with his decision. For the Warpriest while of course still being great throughout all levels from 6 to 20 eventually his decision will eventually mean a plain dead feat (unless in very rare situations in which a 6 HP difference could potentially save him or his group from certain death) and thus probably taken with a grain of salt.
I don't believe you should be able to have all of those at once. If you want the best defensive proficiencies, you should have to give up utility in shield effects. The opposite should also be true - if you want utility shield effects, you should have to give up having the ultimate blocking power.
The difference being that non Shield Block users give up nothing while using utility shield, as explained above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's take a spell guard shield.
The shield currently provides a nice defensive buff, but on the other hand given its stats it isn't likely to be used in order to perform a shield block.
The discussion should start from here
Ok.
The Spell Guard shield definitely isn't strong at blocking, but it only breaks if used (once) against a monster of its level which rolls average or above, and is only destroyed if it blocks a critical hit.Why don't the higher level, non-sturdy shields work the same way, and are instead destroyed by most non-critical hits?
Of course there needs to be a balance between the stats of a Sturdy Shield and the utility of the others, but the balance isn't remotely the same if you look at different moments of an adventurer's carreer.
Why should a shield user get a) the highest AC, b) the ability to block with a shield every turn without worrying about shield HP for a solid duration, and c) special shield abilities on top of all of that?
I don't believe you should be able to have all of those at once. If you want the best defensive proficiencies, you should have to give up utility in shield effects. The opposite should also be true - if you want utility shield effects, you should have to give up having the ultimate blocking power.
Again, no one ever asked for what you are writing here:
a) We are comparing Sturdy Shields with non-sturdy ones, and they all give +2 AC when raised, so this point is null.b) That's not what we are saying. We are saying that a non-sturdy shield should be able to block once, maybe twice before breaking, and with reduced effectiveness (less damage stopped) compared to a sturdy one. While mid-high level non-sturdy shields just explode as soon as you try to block with them once. And a couple special shields are intended to block with, so they effectively become consumable items.
c) Depends on the special abilities. I could dig a shield that gives higher AC when raised, but cannot block. I can understand if the Nethysian Bulwark has low HP, since its point is exploding. But stats should generally scale with level, since everything else does.
Something to think about is if the opposite of the sturdy shield being "to good" for blocking would be if utility shields maybe "too good" for not blocking.
As an example lets take the Spellguard shield and a Warpriest vs a Cloistered Cleric. They unanimously agree that this is the best shield to use, both for AC and for the bonus on saves and both are start using it exclusively from level 6 onward.
For the Cloistered Cleric this is great throughout all levels from 6 to 20 and he is more than happy with his decision. For the Warpriest while of course still being great throughout all levels from 6 to 20 eventually his decision will mean a plain dead feat (unless in very rare situations in which a 6 HP difference could save him or his group from certain death) and thus probably taken with a grain of salt.
Not necessarily true.
A warpriest could ( or would, If i were him ) use its reaction in order to use its reaction in order to perform an AoO or eventually a CR.
Dealing Damage, and possibly bring down an enemy, is "always" better than:
- Renouncing to an extra feature ( +2 vs spells, talking about spellguard shield )
- Not loosing 6/7% of Total HP.
A shield block is really good meant if you want to chain block attacks ( reaction + Quick block + Quick shield block ). If you don't plan to reduce that much, you will find yourself with 1 single reaction to use per round and, considering being able to choose between an AoO and a Shield block, you will always go for the former.
By logic, the fact that a big opportunity cost (spending reactions) exists for blocking should mean that Shield Block should be stronger, not weaker.
I don't believe you should be able to have all of those at once. If you want the best defensive proficiencies, you should have to give up utility in shield effects. The opposite should also be true - if you want utility shield effects, you should have to give up having the ultimate blocking power.
That's basically what everyone against the current state of shield is arguing. We want shield options for shield-focused characters, there are clear issues with the shields (Special material shields, Arrow Catching and Forge Warden) that may warrant a look on the system as a whole.
If the devs elect that the shields are fine as they are, then everyone will just accept that this is a system that is working as intended but is not everyone's cup of tea. It happens, nothing is perfect.
The core issue is that it is OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE that non-sturdy shields aren't viable at higher levels (Around 12+), either being it a matter of price, stats or availability (Rare items). The huge elephant in the room that the defenders always forget to take into account (They always focus on Spellguard for some reason) is that there are several special material shields at higher levels that are directly competing with Sturdy shields, since they only offer Hardness and HP, but are completely broken, they cost too much, they don't offer anything and they simply get destroyed but most monster's average attacks and this is taking into account the very favorable scenario of same-level monsters.
A shield-focused character can't, currently, choose anything other than a Sturdy Shield, there is no meaningful choice to be made past certain levels. At 7th level the Spiked Shield is the last moment where there's a meaningful trade-off. I'm not touching on the issue of dabblers, whatever shield they're using is meaningless to them, because what it matters is the +2 AC and then they still have a lot of options to pick and choose from, meanwhile the choice a Specialized character has to make is
"Do I buy the benchmark of blocking shields that don't offer anything interesting or do I waste hundreds, maybe thousands, of gold in a shield that is worse than my level 4 shield and will be destroyed the first time I use my class features?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, a level 9 creature will break a level 4 Sturdy Shield in two hits. So your multi-blocking focused character will definitely need the upgraded shield, and even that won't last long if they block that often (4 on-level hits break it, let alone criticals).
Second, I'm talking about the balance between a level 6 non-sturdy shield and a level 18 non-sturdy shield. Saying that a sturdy shield has higher stats because you are supposed to use it for a long part of your carreer doesn't explain anything in that regard.
Besides, you are missing the point. Not all classes can excel at shield blocking, that's right, but first of all we are not talking about excelling, we are talking about using it once per fight. And second, who is in trouble is the specialist Fighter/Champion, who sees their options drastically reduced to only one.
Not necessarily true.
A warpriest could ( or would, If i were him ) use its reaction in order to use its reaction in order to perform an AoO or eventually a CR.
Dealing Damage, and possibly bring down an enemy, is "always" better than:
- Renouncing to an extra feature ( +2 vs spells, talking about spellguard shield )
- Not loosing 6/7% of Total HP.
A shield block is really good meant if you want to chain block attacks ( reaction + Quick block + Quick shield block ). If you don't plan to reduce that much, you will find yourself with 1 single reaction to use per round and, considering being able to choose between an AoO and a Shield block, you will always go for the former.
While certainly not wrong, multiclassing into AoO or CR is something the Cloistered Cleric can also do and without invalidating a feat that to a certain degree has been hard-coded into Warpriest to compensate for worse spellcasting.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So where is the problem? The goal of the core book is to make sure people have the options they need to succeed - the Sturdy shield does that. No one needs multiple options in the core book to cater to their niche build. Those are a luxury, not a design issue.This seems a little uncharitable to me. Shield blocking is hardly a niche build, or at least not considered one by many if this thread is anything to go by. Fighters and Champions are both classes with highlighted shield-blocking builds, and the availability of the general feat means other classes can dabble in it as well.Why should a shield user get a) the highest AC, b) the ability to block with a shield every turn without worrying about shield HP for a solid duration, and c) special shield abilities on top of all of that?
I don't believe you should be able to have all of those at once. If you want the best defensive proficiencies, you should have to give up utility in shield effects. The opposite should also be true - if you want utility shield effects, you should have to give up having the ultimate blocking power.
Because at low levels, I've got two of those as a matter of course. By virtue of picking up any random mundane shield, I get its bonus to AC AND on-level blocking. So I feel like those two things are fundamental to what any shield whatsoever should provide. Due to how AC scales, your shield's bonus to AC is always and forevermore worthwhile, despite not scaling. In like and equal fashion, however much relative blocking you were getting at low levels with a mundane shield should be the BEGINNING amount of on-level blocking you get with whichever magic shield we're talking about.
THEN, we can start talking about its utility effect.
I.e., I consider a proper Sturdy Shield to be providing A) its bonus to AC, B) its on-level blocking, and C) its utility effect, which turns out to be extra blocking.
In contrast, a Spellguard Shield should be A) its bonus to AC, B) its on-level blocking, and then C) should be whatever utility it still has room for. If the Spellguard needs to be higher level/cost to justify having its utility plus the other two fundamental benefits, then so be it (with the obvious proviso that its on-level blocking would need to be on-level for its new, higher level). Or if the utility needs to be toned down, then tone it down to fit.
Are there shields with utility effects so uber-OP that they have to trade away both the shield's bonus to AC and its relative blocking power to justify it? Are there weapons or armor with utility effects so powerful that they have to trade on-level accuracy, damage, AC, or save bonuses to make it fair? So why is a shield's relative blocking power eligible for the chopping block if those aren't?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only your opinion that blocking once and losing your shield for the combat would be too good, and you are openly dismissing the fact that a balance does exist until level 7 or so (not just a couple levels!) instead.
So, a character who took the Shield Block feat and used it with some effectiveness for a third of their carreer has to retrain because at some point their style becomes 'too good', even if the relative amount of damage they are actually blocking becomes lower and lower. I don't buy it, sorry.
There appears to be a perception that Shield Block is a significant class feature, as opposed to the minor mechanical benefit offered by a typical General Feat, which some classes receive as a free perk.
It can become a more significant class feature for fighters and champions with significant investment - and a Sturdy Shield addresses the need of these builds for a shield that can block multiple times and not break.
That's the exception, the niche. Not the general design paradigm and rule.
And that's where some of us, at least, disagree. It appears you think your arguments to the contrary are self-evident and that some people disagree with you is a failure of understanding on their part.
Unless you're willing to do the heavy lifting to convince us that its a minor feature, the rest of your argument is going to carry no water.
Its literally a General Feat. That is a minor feature, less than a class feature, and its helpfully listed with the rest of the General Feats.
Its neither controversial nor possible for you to disprove that.
Heavy lifting done.
It's only your opinion that blocking once and losing your shield for the combat would be too good, and you are openly dismissing the fact that a balance does exist until level 7 or so (not just a couple levels!) instead.
So, a character who took the Shield Block feat and used it with some effectiveness for a third of their carreer has to retrain because at some point their style becomes 'too good', even if the relative amount of damage they are actually blocking becomes lower and lower. I don't buy it, sorry.
Or... and this is just a thought... they can invest in the piece of gear that is specifically intended to address this issue, and give them the same sort of blocking power they had until level 6-7.
Which, by what I assume is probably not design and is just coincidence (sarcasm), is also where they have to start deciding what is more valuable to them - blocking power (like they had before) or utility like the Spellguard Shield or Spined Shield.
You have the player choice to continue as you were, with potent blocking, or switch to utility. Thats game design like, 102.
It's only your opinion that blocking once and losing your shield for the combat would be too good, and you are openly dismissing the fact that a balance does exist until level 7 or so (not just a couple levels!) instead.
So, a character who took the Shield Block feat and used it with some effectiveness for a third of their carreer has to retrain because at some point their style becomes 'too good', even if the relative amount of damage they are actually blocking becomes lower and lower. I don't buy it, sorry.I feel that you are pushing this "a little bit too much" that is becoming surreal.
If a characters goes with shieldblock since the first level ( let's assume the human who forgo its ancestry feat to take the general one shield block ), then it will simply continue using the shield block.
I mean, you are complaining that, not being able to have both shield features and shield block in one item, some balance should be given.
"Oh god, these shields don't give me protection against magic. I, who have mastered sword and board since I was young, feel like I am going to drop my shield and take an halberd instead".
No, the character would stick with a sturdy shield and go with it.
If its main purpose is to deal with enemy blows.Really, ok p2e is a board game now ( and I like it cause the combat is excellent ), but thinking to drop and entirely change a character because petty reasons is in my opinion way too much.
So you can have multiple choices up to a point where it becomes binary instead. For no reason, actually, but you feel that it's necessary.
To me, having the option of burning a reaction to block a few points of damage, with the extra opportunity cost of losing that sweet bonus AC for the fight, enriches the game and surely doesn't break it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that standard AoO's are a "minor feature". I wouldn't buy that, either.
There appears to be a perception that Shield Block is a significant class feature, as opposed to the minor mechanical benefit offered by a typical General Feat, which some classes receive as a free perk.It can become a more significant class feature for fighters and champions with significant investment - and a Sturdy Shield addresses the need of these builds for a shield that can block multiple times and not break.
That's the exception, the niche. Not the general design paradigm and rule.
AOO's are a 1st level class feature for Fighters, and a higher level class feat for other classes. That's not even remotely close to the same as a General Feat 1.
And that is the root of the problem here - Shield Block is being treated as equivalent to Attack of Opportunity as a feature, and its not. Its not even close. One is a feat available to all characters with no prerequisites, the other is actually a signature feature to the best fighting class in the game and a 6th level feature for some other martial classes.
You really have to understand this in order to perceive whats going on here. Its a fundamental part of the games design, you cannot consider these two things as remotely equivalent.
It's only your opinion that blocking once and losing your shield for the combat would be too good, and you are openly dismissing the fact that a balance does exist until level 7 or so (not just a couple levels!) instead.
So, a character who took the Shield Block feat and used it with some effectiveness for a third of their carreer has to retrain because at some point their style becomes 'too good', even if the relative amount of damage they are actually blocking becomes lower and lower. I don't buy it, sorry.Or... and this is just a thought... they can invest in the piece of gear that is specifically intended to address this issue, and give them the same sort of blocking power they had until level 6-7.
Which, by what I assume is probably not design and is just coincidence (sarcasm), is also where they have to start deciding what is more valuable to them - blocking power (like they had before) or utility like the Spellguard Shield or Spined Shield.
You have the player choice to continue as you were, with potent blocking, or switch to utility. Thats game design like, 102.
Same thing here, at some point you have to make a choice because yes.
It's not a matter of balance, because if it was then levels 1-7 would be broken already (and actually, I think that at level 1 a steel shield is too good).It's only a matter of defending the status quo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only your opinion that blocking once and losing your shield for the combat would be too good, and you are openly dismissing the fact that a balance does exist until level 7 or so (not just a couple levels!) instead.
So, a character who took the Shield Block feat and used it with some effectiveness for a third of their carreer has to retrain because at some point their style becomes 'too good', even if the relative amount of damage they are actually blocking becomes lower and lower. I don't buy it, sorry.Or... and this is just a thought... they can invest in the piece of gear that is specifically intended to address this issue, and give them the same sort of blocking power they had until level 6-7.
Which, by what I assume is probably not design and is just coincidence (sarcasm), is also where they have to start deciding what is more valuable to them - blocking power (like they had before) or utility like the Spellguard Shield or Spined Shield.
You have the player choice to continue as you were, with potent blocking, or switch to utility. Thats game design like, 102.
It's only your opinion that blocking once and losing your shield for the combat would be too good, and you are openly dismissing the fact that a balance does exist until level 7 or so (not just a couple levels!) instead.
So, a character who took the Shield Block feat and used it with some effectiveness for a third of their carreer has to retrain because at some point their style becomes 'too good', even if the relative amount of damage they are actually blocking becomes lower and lower. I don't buy it, sorry.I feel that you are pushing this "a little bit too much" that is becoming surreal.
If a characters goes with shieldblock since the first level ( let's assume the human who forgo its ancestry feat to take the general one shield block ), then it will simply continue using the shield block.
I mean, you are complaining that, not being able to have both shield features and shield block in one item, some balance should be given.
"Oh god, these shields don't give me protection against magic. I, who have mastered sword and board since I was young, feel like I am going to drop my shield and take an halberd instead".
No, the character would stick with a sturdy shield and go with it.
If its main purpose is to deal with enemy blows.Really, ok p2e is a board game now ( and I like it cause the combat is excellent ), but thinking to drop and entirely change a character because petty reasons is in my opinion way too much.
Okay, which is it?
At lower levels (i.e., my formative years as a fighter that I'm not going to change for petty reasons), I could enjoy SOME reliable blocking while also enjoying SOME utility off of the same object. So I have a legitimate expectation that such a change isn't going to get imposed on me due to math artifacts of the game.
Except Game Design 102 apparently says I'm totally supposed to pick one or the other. I.e., change my character's fighting style from what it was during his formative years because ... why?
Tectorman, it is basic game design that as the game progresses, the players have to make progressively more decisions, with a broader range of options and consequences.
Just like you have to upgrade your weapons, its expected you'll continue investing in your shield. And once you start to have options, some of those options are going to be at the expense of other options.
You don't start with the option to choose utility over durability - thats something that happens when new options become available.
You don't have to change your playstyle. There's an option for continuing exactly the same.
But if you do opt for a new shield, it doesn't come with the old features as well, relative to your current level.
It is absolutely an artifact that your Spellguard Shield can absorb some hits into the low-mid teens - its not really required by the games design for it to be usable for blocking up to 20.
They specifically changed that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tectorman, it is basic game design that as the game progresses, the players have to make progressively more decisions, with a broader range of options and consequences.
Just like you have to upgrade your weapons, its expected you'll continue investing in your shield. And once you start to have options, some of those options are going to be at the expense of other options.
You don't start with the option to choose utility over durability - thats something that happens when new options become available.
You don't have to change your playstyle. There's an option for continuing exactly the same.
But if you do opt for a new shield, it doesn't come with the old features as well, relative to your current level.
It is absolutely an artifact that your Spellguard Shield can absorb some hits into the low-mid teens - its not really required by the games design for it to be usable for blocking up to 20.
They specifically changed that.
But I didn't see any post arguing that Lion's Shield, Spellguard Shield and Spined Shield are too durable and that their stats should be lowered. They are clearly utility shields, and pretty good ones, so they should never be used for blocking, should they?
I'm pretty sure that if the game only had Striking Runes defined for two-handed weapons, with all the others stuck at doing 1 die of damage, we would have people defending that 'design choice' and saying that, clearly, if you want to do damage you need a big weapon; all the others are there for their traits, it would be too good to make them scale up.
What, does the different become meaningful only after a few levels? That's intended! Lower levels don't count for balance.
But I didn't see any post arguing that Lion's Shield, Spellguard Shield and Spined Shield are too durable and that their stats should be lowered. They are clearly utility shields, and pretty good ones, so they should never be used for blocking, should they?
Wow, that's... really misrepresentative of other peoples positions.
No one said 'never'. In fact, I've pointed out multiple times you can get in blocks with these shields at high mid levels, and you should.
What you should 'never' block is an attack that will destroy whichever shield you are currently using.
But I didn't see any post arguing that Lion's Shield, Spellguard Shield and Spined Shield are too durable and that their stats should be lowered. They are clearly utility shields, and pretty good ones, so they should never be used for blocking, should they?
Wow, that's... really misrepresentative of other peoples positions.
No one said 'never'. In fact, I've pointed out multiple times you can get in blocks with these shields at high mid levels, and you should.
What you should 'never' block is an attack that will destroy whichever shield you are currently using.
So with those three shields it's ok to block once, but with a Forge Warden, or a Reflecting, or a Greater Floating one it's not. Why?
So with those three shields it's ok to block once, but with a Forge Warden, or a Reflecting, or a Greater Floating one it's not. Why?
But I didn't see any post arguing that Lion's Shield, Spellguard Shield and Spined Shield are too durable and that their stats should be lowered. They are clearly utility shields, and pretty good ones, so they should never be used for blocking, should they?
Wow, that's... really misrepresentative of other peoples positions.
No one said 'never'. In fact, I've pointed out multiple times you can get in blocks with these shields at high mid levels, and you should.
What you should 'never' block is an attack that will destroy whichever shield you are currently using.
Dude - you're asking for a universal progression over 20 level levels, where things don't change relative to your current level.
Its absolutely fine that you can't block many attacks at level 18, when you could at 6.
If you want to Block attacks at 18, they provided you an option to facilitate it.
If you choose to ignore that option, its metaphorically little different than choosing to destroy your shield. You don't have to do it, and I don't recommend it - you're only hurting yourself.
Tectorman, it is basic game design that as the game progresses, the players have to make progressively more decisions, with a broader range of options and consequences.
Just like you have to upgrade your weapons, its expected you'll continue investing in your shield. And once you start to have options, some of those options are going to be at the expense of other options.
You don't start with the option to choose utility over durability - thats something that happens when new options become available.
You don't have to change your playstyle. There's an option for continuing exactly the same.
But if you do opt for a new shield, it doesn't come with the old features as well, relative to your current level.
It is absolutely an artifact that your Spellguard Shield can absorb some hits into the low-mid teens - its not really required by the games design for it to be usable for blocking up to 20.
They specifically changed that.
ABP says that, no, that's not a mandatory part of the game. It's there by default, not by necessity. And under ABP, I can pick up a mundane longsword at any level and use it with on-level accuracy and damage. I don't HAVE to sacrifice anything for my longsword to remain as fundamentally useful as it always was. I may have to pick one flavor of utility at the expense of another utility, but its baseline abilities are never in the running to be so traded away (kind of like how there's no shield with a utility function so good that it had to trade its bonus to AC to justify itself).
I also fully believe that the ABP should have done the same for shields. Just as Joe Average Any-level-Fighter can pick up the same mundane longsword and get the same usefulness (whether he's 1st or 10th or 19th), he SHOULD be able to pick up a random mundane shield and get the same blocking out of it (and again, whether he's 1st or 10th or 19th). That this isn't covered by the ABP is a crying shame.
I'll agree that higher levels should introduce more decisions of this utility (blocking above and beyond baseline expected) versus that utility (spellguard), but not this utility versus continuing the initial functionality established by the game. We know such a design philosophy can exist in this game (ABP with weapons and armor); that's not in question. We just think that should have included shields.
So with those three shields it's ok to block once, but with a Forge Warden, or a Reflecting, or a Greater Floating one it's not. Why?
But I didn't see any post arguing that Lion's Shield, Spellguard Shield and Spined Shield are too durable and that their stats should be lowered. They are clearly utility shields, and pretty good ones, so they should never be used for blocking, should they?
Wow, that's... really misrepresentative of other peoples positions.
No one said 'never'. In fact, I've pointed out multiple times you can get in blocks with these shields at high mid levels, and you should.
What you should 'never' block is an attack that will destroy whichever shield you are currently using.
Dude - you're asking for a universal progression over 20 level levels, where things don't change relative to your current level.
Its absolutely fine that you can't block many attacks at level 18, when you could at 6.
If you want to Block attacks at 18, they provided you an option to facilitate it.
If you choose to ignore that option, its metaphorically little different than choosing to destroy your shield. You don't have to do it, and I don't recommend it - you're only hurting yourself.
It's absolutely fine that you can't pick up just any weapon and use it with on-level accuracy at level 18 (since you can only afford so many fundamental runes on so many weapons) as you could at level 6.
ABP says it's also fine if you can. That kind of choice is not a fundamental necessity. ABP says that a universal progression from 1-20 (albeit, possibly with only a few steps spread out) is not any kind of unreasonable thing to ask for.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little confused by why the Spellguard Shield keeps being used as the prime example in this discussion. It's probably the worst example for this in the entire game, because in a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is totally utility focused and 10 is totally blocking focused, the Spellguard Shield would be the 1. The problem is that people, especially the people defending the current state of shields, keep talking like 1 and 10 were the possible design options. Why can't we have a 4? A 6? An 8?
The fact that Sturdy Shield is the single only option for blocking across the levels now doesn't mean this needs to be the case. In fact, many people clearly think it shouldn't be the case, because they want to have meaninful and interesting options for their characters, and the non-choice between using a Sturdy Shield or not when you already know you want to block isn't really cutting as very engaging or exciting.
I would be completely fine and happy as someone currently playing a Shield Champion if having a shield that's pretty good (but not the best) at blocking for its level, and has a nice little effect, or having a shield that's average at blocking for its level and has an average effect, were options. But they aren't, or at least not past the early game. The choice is either make a build that relies on blocking and be stuck with buffed versions of a single, effectless item forever, or ignore blocking entirely and have all the 99% other shields in the game at your disposal.
Also, if the design intent is that some shields shouldn't be used to block at all, which it clearly is, why not just say "This special shield is made of fragile material and can only deflect attacks. It can't be used for the Shield Block reaction" for something like the Spellguard Shield? At least you're actually telling people what you wanna do instead of slowly pigeonholing them more and more into the Sturdy Shield by steadily taking the other options away.
dmerceless, the Spellguard shield is definitely not a 1 in that scale. It's probably a 3 or 4, as it has great utility but it can block non-critical hits without being destroyed, and even without breaking if the roll is in the lower portion of the range. And at level 6, its hardness is enough to stop about 33% of an average hit, while Sturdy Shields keep around 40-50% throughout levels 4-19.
Not spectacular, indeed, but not even that bad.
An 1 are all those higher level shields, as they are guaranteed to be destroyed by a single on-level hit.
The strange thing, to me, is that non-sturdy shields seem to actually have a progression in hardness (and consequently in HP and BT), but only up to a point: they have hardness 6 at level 6-7, go up to 8 at level 9, and then... back to 6 all the way to level 20.
Edit: I'll add an interesting thing.
Level 6 average 'high damage' = 18. Utility shields hardness = 6 (1/3).
Level 9 average 'high damage' = 24. Utility shields hardness = 8 (1/3).
So maybe there was an intended progression, but it was lost at some point.
dmerceless, the Spellguard shield is definitely not a 1 in that scale. It's probably a 3 or 4, as it has great utility but it can block non-critical hits without being destroyed, and even without breaking if the roll is in the lower portion of the range. And at level 6, its hardness is enough to stop about 33% of an average hit, while Sturdy Shields keep around 40-50% throughout levels 4-19.
Not spectacular, indeed, but not even that bad.
You're not wrong, but I would say the Spellguard Shield being able to block a small hit or so at its level is more virtue of it being a relatively low-level item than the design intent behind it. As you said, the higher level the shield is, the worse it will be at blocking if not Sturdy. And yes, I 100% agree that's a big issue.
Because we have those options.
Unless Paizo clarifies how to merge materials and specific shields.The current situation works, although some players don't like is that not all shields are meant to block.
But this doesn't mean that the system is broken.Currently we are simply discussing about preferences ( since everybody is allowed to buy either a sturdy shield or a shield not suited for the shieldblock reaction ).
I'm a bit confused by your reply, to be honest. Yes, everybody is allowed to buy either a Sturdy Shield or a shield not suited for blocking, but that's exactly the 1 and the 10 and I'm talking about. What are the 4's, 6's and 8's out there? Spined Shield is there, sure, but those options basically stop existing after level 7 or so. And even Spined Shield is more of a "block, but slightly differently" item than "block a bit less than Sturdy and have nice little effect".
Please check my edit above.
I'm now quite convinced that, barring possible specific exceptions, utility shields are intended to have hardness equal to 1/3 of average high damage of a creature that level, while sturdy ones are around 1/2 with double the HP/BT of other shields.
If the Arrow-Catching Shield goes up to hardness 9 or 10 (and 36-40 HP, accordingly) it becomes a usable piece of equipment.
Let me get this straight:
SIDE A:
Non-sturdy shields are too frail - sturdy is OK but getting the shieldbrokendestroyed unless it's sturdy is unsatisfactorySIDE B:
Non-sturdy shields are fine - sturdy is OK but getting the shiledbrokendestroyed unless it's sturdy is healthy for the gameCorrected it.
So far, the most recurring arguments for Side B are:
1) Non-sturdy shields are fine because some classes shouldn't use shields at all.
2) Non-sturdy shields are fine because you can choose not to block.
3) Non-sturdy shields are fine because blocking is a secondary mechanic that should only be allowed with a very specific item choice.
4) Non-sturdy shields are fine because CRB had limited space and thus other viable options for blocking couldn't fit.
5) Non-sturdy shields are fine because spending a reaction to block 6 damage once or twice per fight at level 18 without suffering an important wealth loss would be too much, unless you have that specific item.Except, I'll say, that you can block the same damage at level 6, when that amount is much more meaningful, most of the times without destroying your non-sturdy shield.
But is it healthy for the game that normal shields get destroyed on shield block?