...so it's definitely Krispy has to "yield to the argumentation" and not someone else? What makes some players saying "this mechanic is broken" inherently more true than some players saying "this mechanic isn't broken"?
I posit that this is a public forum and we are all equal. Meaning we all have equal right to repeat our opinions, even as they differ from each other, and neither side has any greater requirement to "yield"
Because that very same attitude you direct at Krispy's opinion, Zapp, applies to your own as well - the point of the the forum is discussion, not for people with complaints to continually post about them, silence anyone with a different opinion or attempt to invalidate their opinions with false accusations of misconduct, and then use "look at how many posts complaining about this there are" as a means to try and convince the game's developers that catering to the complaints would be a good course of action.
Thanks TheNobleDrake!
I think its also worth noting that Zapp's post also ignores the fact that I've repeatedly conceded that there are several shields that likely are outside of of whats intended, which need to be fixed.
As well, I've been completely agreeable about the state of Special Material Shields, which are absolutely outside the realm of usable as designed. I'm not sure why... I personally think they weren't intended to be usable as it stands... but I'm not recommending anyone spend gold on or use an Adamantine Shield. I can't currently come up for any argument why you would.
Saying I've not conceded anything is more or less factually untrue :/
Its pretty frustrating to come here, and share actual documentary comparisons and evidence and be called down for being 'stubborn' and unyielding. Its not like I can backtrack on pointing out that Shield Block isn't as significant a feature (due to it being a General Feat) as other things like Attack of Opportunity. I didn't think it was controversial that General Feats weren't significant 'power' advantages, or intended to be build defining...
As well, I'm presenting a position based on how things are, as opposed to how I want them to be. I'm not trying to explain what I want - I'm trying to explain the system as it actually exists, and how it works when you accept that and embrace it as opposed to rejecting based on personal desires or expectations.
I've found system to, by and large, work wonderfully in actual play. Sturdy Shields (the focus of this thread) did not prevent shield diversity, were not the only shields used to block, and were themselves extremely useful.
But the mechanics are fine.
If mechanics are fine will not be decided by any discussion here in the forum, however lengthy. All a civilized discussion can do is to raise game developer awareness that there might be an issue or perceived issue, hopefully having them take a second look at the topic while considering our input (pros and cons) and eventually taking action (if really deemed necessary).
But the mechanics are fine.If mechanics are fine will not be decided by any discussion here in the forum, however lengthy. All a civilized discussion can do is to raise game developer awareness that there might be an issue or perceived issue, hopefully having them take a second look at the topic while considering our input (pros and cons) and eventually taking action (if really deemed necessary).
There's also theoretically a middle ground, which doesn't necessarily include a complete system overhaul.
I think everyone here wins if interest spurs developers to include things in the vein of a Greater and Major Spined Shield for example.
Or if the next 'Reforging Shield' type item isn't Rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the mechanics are fine.If mechanics are fine will not be decided by any discussion here in the forum, however lengthy. All a civilized discussion can do is to raise game developer awareness that there might be an issue or perceived issue, hopefully having them take a second look at the topic while considering our input (pros and cons) and eventually taking action (if really deemed necessary).There's also theoretically a middle ground, which doesn't necessarily include a complete system overhaul.
I think everyone here wins if interest spurs developers to include things in the vein of a Greater and Major Spined Shield for example.
Or if the next 'Reforging Shield' type item isn't Rare.
Any solution is welcome, it has not have to be a total shield rules revamp. As such even a 'working as intended' confirmation would be appreciated. The important thing is that threads like this or the one for battle medicine raise awareness on the game developer side.
What I would like to see is:
- Revamp of special material shield section
- Revamp of shields that need to block in order to function
- Addition of more "in between" shields (not necessarily in the CRB)
But the mechanics are fine.If mechanics are fine will not be decided by any discussion here in the forum, however lengthy. All a civilized discussion can do is to raise game developer awareness that there might be an issue or perceived issue, hopefully having them take a second look at the topic while considering our input (pros and cons) and eventually taking action (if really deemed necessary).There's also theoretically a middle ground, which doesn't necessarily include a complete system overhaul.
I think everyone here wins if interest spurs developers to include things in the vein of a Greater and Major Spined Shield for example.
Or if the next 'Reforging Shield' type item isn't Rare.
Any solution is welcome, it has not have to be a total shield rules revamp. As such even a 'working as intended' confirmation would be appreciated. The important thing is that threads like this or the one for battle medicine raise awareness on the game developer side.
What I would like to see is:
- Revamp of special material shield section
- Revamp of shields that need to block in order to function
- Addition of more "in between" shields (not necessarily in the CRB)
I also think the suggestion someone made a while ago about a cheap, unrestricted talisman that prevents a shield from being destroyed was a great idea for a "patch" for this issue.
The less errata a fix requires, the more likely we are to actually see it.
I'd also like to come clean on something here - if I were to end up being wrong here, and they ended up changing shields and adding tons of hardness and hp to all the shields, I'm not going to riot and abandon PF2.
I'm going to say, "Dang, I liked being forced to choose between one path or another and not necessarily get everything I want." And then I'm going to tell my shield using players its surprise Christmas and they just got even more unkillable.
But I do honestly think the current system is mostly working as intended, and it has real design merit. I'm not here presenting my position in Bad Faith.
Its pretty frustrating to come here, and share actual documentary comparisons and evidence and be called down for being 'stubborn' and unyielding. Its not like I can backtrack on pointing out that Shield Block isn't as significant a feature (due to it being a General Feat) as other things like Attack of Opportunity. I didn't think it was controversial that General Feats weren't significant 'power' advantages, or intended to be build defining...
A single general feat may not be build defining, but there are several class feats that expand on that. For some Fighters and Paladins, shild blocking is really important, and not a minor feature.
And as a 'dabbler' who just chose that general feat, being told that I can't use it after level X unless I equip a very specific type of shield doesn't feel nice.And let me say, while you did concede that there are some problems with shields (the most evident ones, and yet someone else negated that they exist), your use of absolute statements like this, that shield block is not an importat feature, or that its mechanics are fine because you can choose not to use it, don't help you look reasonable.
I haven't actually played at higher levels yet so me thinking things are mostly fine there is untested theory.
The numbers are there. The problematic shields are all level 10+, and they all have the same stats, which are inferior compared to the level 9 ones.
It should look a bit strange when an ongoing progression breaks, and all the following items have the same numbers. It seems to me that the approach here, instead, is having blind faith in the infallibility of the developers, and looking for reasons to validate whatever is written in the book.
I haven't actually played at higher levels yet so me thinking things are mostly fine there is untested theory.The numbers are there. The problematic shields are all level 10+, and they all have the same stats, which are inferior compared to the level 9 ones.
It should look a bit strange when an ongoing progression breaks, and all the following items have the same numbers. It seems to me that the approach here, instead, is having blind faith in the infallibility of the developers, and looking for reasons to validate whatever is written in the book.
Nah, actually GMed to level 20 with a shield user. No blind faith here.
Shield Champion worked just fine from 10-20, and used (and blocked with) shields other than Sturdies throughout.
Do you have gameplay experience in this level range, or just white-room math?
I haven't actually played at higher levels yet so me thinking things are mostly fine there is untested theory.The numbers are there. The problematic shields are all level 10+, and they all have the same stats, which are inferior compared to the level 9 ones.
It should look a bit strange when an ongoing progression breaks, and all the following items have the same numbers. It seems to me that the approach here, instead, is having blind faith in the infallibility of the developers, and looking for reasons to validate whatever is written in the book.Nah, actually GMed to level 20 with a shield user. No blind faith here.
Shield Champion worked just fine from 10-20, and used (and blocked with) shields other than Sturdies throughout.
Do you have gameplay experience in this level range, or just white-room math?
Blind faith is about believing that it must be right because it's written there, when the numbers have a rather strange pattern.
It doesn't take a direct experience to know that past level 10 your non-sturdy shield will be destroyed if you block with it once, if you aren't still fighting stuff half your level.Unless it's a niche case where the Champion used both Shield Block and their reaction to mitigate damage further, for example. Blocking damage that has been reduced otherwise doesn't mean that the mechanic works in general.
I haven't actually played at higher levels yet so me thinking things are mostly fine there is untested theory.The numbers are there. The problematic shields are all level 10+, and they all have the same stats, which are inferior compared to the level 9 ones.
It should look a bit strange when an ongoing progression breaks, and all the following items have the same numbers. It seems to me that the approach here, instead, is having blind faith in the infallibility of the developers, and looking for reasons to validate whatever is written in the book.Nah, actually GMed to level 20 with a shield user. No blind faith here.
Shield Champion worked just fine from 10-20, and used (and blocked with) shields other than Sturdies throughout.
Do you have gameplay experience in this level range, or just white-room math?
Blind faith is about believing that it must be right because it's written there, when the numbers have a rather strange pattern.
It doesn't take a direct experience to know that past level 10 your non-sturdy shield will be destroyed if you block with it once, if you aren't still fighting stuff half your level.
Unless it's a niche case where the Champion used both Shield Block and their reaction to mitigate damage further, for example. Blocking damage that has been reduced otherwise doesn't mean that the mechanic works in general.
Megistone, what you should try to understand is that the game is not designed for you to block any given attack. Its designed for you to be hit, be told the amount of damage, and for you at that time to make the risk based decision whether to block or not. You should not be planning on blocking before this point - if you are, you're likely playing against design which is super likely to result in friction and frustration.
Shockingly, if you play it as designed
you'll find plenty of opportunities to block with non-sturdy shields after level 10. Yeah shields will break, but repairs are easy and while 5-6 hp aren't amazing or anything, they often feel free.
Its when you calibrate your expectations independant of actual play that you run into these issues.
One of the frustrating things about this discussion is people saying they want the game to work a certain way, and it already actually does. It takes longer than you think to run out of opportunities to block an attack per encounter even with one of the "normal" started shields.
I understand very well how it works.
When the only hits you can block are the ones that rolled minimum damage, and it quickly goes down to 10%, or even under 1% of on-level regular hits, and all the others destroy your shield, I don't see those plenty of opportunities.
And besides that, what completely baffles me is the fact that the situation is very different before that point. You will dismiss this saying that 'it's normal', but it's not.
Non-sturdy shield stats seem to go up following an exact formula, until they stop and go back to base values for the rest of the way.
I would really like to know what reasons could a developer have to consciously make things so. What happens at the higher levels that needs less durable shields?
I understand very well how it works.
When the only hits you can block are the ones that rolled minimum damage, and it quickly goes down to 10%, or even under 1% of on-level regular hits, and all the others destroy your shield, I don't see those plenty of opportunities.
Perhaps you haven't seen them as you haven't run or played enough high level encounters? I'm running on the assumption here that your numbers are calculated and not practical, but if that's not true I appologize.
And besides that, what completely baffles me is the fact that the situation is very different before that point. You will dismiss this saying that 'it's normal', but it's not.
Non-sturdy shield stats seem to go up following an exact formula, until they stop and go back to base values for the rest of the way.
If I could address this, I would. I dont have anything to add - maybe you're on to something, or maybe its a coincidence? I'm not ignoring you here - I just don't have enough information to draw a conclusion.
What happens at the higher levels that needs less durable shields?
Here, I do have information to draw a conclusion - the base stats of shields at high level are consistent with mundane shields, implying that their enchantments don't effect their durability. If you dont assume that you're supposed to regularly block with them, its a non-issue.
Please stop trying to explain to us how the game is designed. We know how the games is design. How the game is designed is exactly what we are complaining about!
_
glass.
"I don't like it!" is different from "Is it broken?" Or more relevant, "Is it good for the game?"
If the current design of the Sturdy Shield supports the intent and creates a situation that is working as intended... its good for the game, right?
As far as people liking it goes, there's the off chance you could change your perspective and embrace the design as a result of someone presenting an alternative viewpoints, facts, experience and evidence.
Even if you dont, that viewpoint and perspective could help a third party (like the developers) approach a decision.
Theres zero chance I can help by changing the fundamental design of the game.
"Experiences" are meaningless. If you had a lot of blocking at high levels, and we know that average damage destroys shields, then you had a lot of below average damage rolls (or a lot of walk-over fights against much lower level opposition). Which is fine, but not usefull in addressing the design of the game.
_
glass.
Actually, what it means is that my players experienced a range of damage rolls that occurred with results that were sometimes high, but also sometimes low. Which is what is expected when looking at the likely outcomes predicted by probability and statistics.
Did you know that you're more likely to roll "Above or Below Average" than you are to roll "Average" on a composite die result? Focusing on the average result is often misleading, because it leads to forgetting that most die results will actually be a bit over it (not relevant for shields) or a bit under it (extremely relevant for shields).
You can't pretend like under the curve damage rolls don't happen because it undermines your point- the reality is, it is the expected outcome that you'll have plenty of opportunities to block attacks with any shield well into the mid teen levels.
Hell, I ran a level 20 creature the other night that has single-instance damage of only 2d10+14 on some of its attacks. There additional gimmick damage, but thats not relevant for blocking with a shield.
have to protect their shields with their bodies
This keeps coming up and it needs to stop. Its a subjective description being projected on this situation and looking at things this way precludes any realistic fix.
It is in no way intended that you should interpret the shield block mechanic as ever requiring your character to protect his shield with his own body or face. No mechanic is described that way, it is simply how you have chosen to frame the situation to make it seem absurd.
The solution to this is to change how you are framing the situation. The problem isn't the game in this case, it really is how you are making the choice to view the abstract mechanic.
If you choose to perceive Raise Shield as normal shield use and Shield Block as a exception, youll find this issue instantly dissappears.
And it will not dissappear until you change your perception, because so long as the risk of shields being destroyed exists, there will always be a point at which the character "chooses to protect the shield with his face".
Honestly, I think saying Paizo will only fix with errata things that are objectively broken is completely ignoring the first round of errata and the confirmed and announced changes we already have for the second one.
Was Goodberry "broken"? No, it was just a bad spell. Was Dwarves having to pay for their clan daggers "broken"? No, it just didn't fit thematically. Even a best example from the future errata, are the current container rules "broken"? No, they work perfectly well, and some people even like a lot that you keep track each container as an individual item. It's realistic. But the entire system is still being revamped in the next errata (as confirmed by the Gear Deck) because a lot of people were unsatisfied with it.
In a similar vein, "working as originally intended by the designers" doesn't mean it can't be changed either. Unarmed Attack proficiencies were clearly working as originally intended by the designers. So much so that a lot of the Iruxi Ancestry feats, from a book that came after release, were designed around those assumptions. But guess what? A lot of people hated that and it was changed.
Yes, this book was made by a huge team of designers, editors and so on, but it's also a 640 page book and it's literally impossible that every single subsystem and mechanic will be satisfying from the get go.
If you think the current shield mechanics are satisfying, I completely disagree, but you have all the right to defend them. Now please, don't use "the status quo is the status quo" as an argument to defend said status quo. We're in 2020, this doesn't need to be (and isn't) a game that only gets changes when an issue means the end of the universe.
have to protect their shields with their bodiesThis keeps coming up and it needs to stop. Its a subjective description being projected on this situation and looking at things this way precludes any realistic fix.No. It is a pithy description, but it is absolutely apt. You know the incoming damage and knowingly decide to take it on your own hit points (putting yourself closer to a violent death) rather than destroying your shield. Perhaps you and your players are happy to do that, but the cognative dissonance is too much for me. I will not be playing a shield user in PF2 unless it is errataed or houseruled.
_
glass.
Its a game mechanic, and your cognitive dissonance is coming from how you choose to perceive it.
It is unreasonable to demand it change to accommodate You, when you could so easily resolve to accept that its just a game construct and resolve the issue.
That's not a broken game mechanic.
have to protect their shields with their bodiesThis keeps coming up and it needs to stop. Its a subjective description being projected on this situation and looking at things this way precludes any realistic fix.No. It is a pithy description, but it is absolutely apt. You know the incoming damage and knowingly decide to take it on your own hit points (putting yourself closer to a violent death) rather than destroying your shield. Perhaps you and your players are happy to do that, but the cognative dissonance is too much for me. I will not be playing a shield user in PF2 unless it is errataed or houseruled.
_
glass.Its a game mechanic, and your cognitive dissonance is coming from how you choose to perceive it.
It is unreasonable to demand it change to accommodate You, when you could so easily resolve to accept that its just a game construct and resolve the issue.
That's not a broken game mechanic.
Which is why I suggested that renaming "Shield Block" to "Sacrifice Shield" would be the least invasive change, to facilitate eliminating that cognitive dissonance and better bring player expectations in line with what you're telling us the game's expectations are. You shot that down, too.
Which is why I suggested that renaming "Shield Block" to "Sacrifice Shield" would be the least invasive change, to facilitate eliminating that cognitive dissonance and better bring player expectations in line with what you're telling us the game's expectations are. You shot that down, too.
Did I? I'm pretty sure I at the very least suggested that having swapped the names of Shield Block and Raise Shield may have helped resolve this, with proper flavor text. If I was overly dismissive, I wholeheartedly appologize - its not a terrible strategy or idea, even if its not the specific choice I'd make (I also don't think it's necessary).
Regardless of the ability names though, its partially the players responsibility to fit an ability into the narrative and context of the game.
Choosing to do so in a way that is obstructive when you have the choice not tp is not helpful.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read through the entire thread, and as best as I can tell, the level-scaling thing here hasn't really been thoroughly addressed. I've not played/run higher level PF2, so this is entirely coming from reading here + looking at the maths - I'm not pretending I'm an expert. It does seem to be the case that as you level up, your options for the diverse use of shields decreases - and when this was mentioned earlier in the thread, the response was essentially 'as you get higher level, you have to specialize more, so of course your options are more limited for balance purposes', but I still don't really get this one.
Lets say I have a player who enjoys using shields, in particular the Shield Block reaction. At 1st level, they're using their Steel shield, and they can Shield Block almost every round of combat and be fine. As they level up, they get a cool new shield around level 4-5 - most of the shields will still be able to Shield Block, and have some interesting utility effects. But when they get a new shield at level ~10, they now have essentially a binary choice - take a shield that gives cool utility effects but can block ~1 blow a fight, maybe 2 if you're waiting for the particularly low damage rolls, or take a Sturdy shield with which you can block several times a fight still. This is, of course, jarring to my player - they've been taught by the game for several levels to be shield blocking at least semi-regularly, even with their cool shields, but now they're strongly encouraged to do so only in the perfect circumstances.
I'm not quite getting why the justification for this change is 'that's required for balance'. Was having shields that did something other than block, but could still block, unbalanced at those lower levels? If it wasn't, why is it unbalanced now? It seems to me that it's just a lack of options (outside of some obviously non-functional items that we're all basically agreeing on, like the arrow-catching shield/adamantine shield) at those higher levels, and as we get more shields we'll have more options in the middle ground. But I've not played those levels, and there's certainly arguments here that it's only natural for this fairly drastic change in how players should be using their shield-blocking capabilities due to balance reasons. Am I missing something?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest I feel that "shields getting destroyed when used to block" should not be a frequent fantasy trope. It should be rare and significant.
A design that produces a narrative where shields are at a constant risk of being destroyed when used for their main purpose is a design that produces a narrative I don't like.
Just my 2 cents.
Arcalan, its less about specific game balance than the fact that allowing more shields to be viable at blocking makes an already powerful strategy even more powerful, and invalidates "blocking shields" as a reasonable option.
Currently, at high levels my theoretical champion (or really, the champion in my game I ran) has to choose between a Sturdy (or Reforging) Shield and a Spellguard shield at any given moment. My gut tells me no amount of Shield Blocking is worth +2 circumstance to saves versus magic, but the Sturdy Shields stats are high enough to actually make me consider it. Either way, I'm actually getting significant physical damage reduction from Raise Shield.
If you change this equation by making the Spellguard Shield even adequate at blocking, the situation devolves instantly as the "question" disappears. It was a choice before, but now I get to block more than once AND have spellguard cake too? No contest!
I use the Spellguard shield in my examples because its strong enough to make the issue most obvious - there's definitely room for things like the Spined Shield or Arrowcatcher Shield in the middle, but their utility is directly related to blocking.
At that point, it appears to be about removing the need to choose between Shields based on circumstances (i consider this a negative), and about the desire to remove the choice of whether to block from blocking (also consider this a negative, and appears to be contrary to intended design).
As there's no need for Shield Block to make shields viable (Raise Shield does this on its own), making shields better at Blocking in general feels wholly unnecessary. It's more power for the sake of more power.
But its not going to crack the games balance like an egg, or anything apocalyptic like that. It just feels extremely unwarranted, and will certainly reduce the need to carefully choose your equipment based on circumstance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't know if it's been mentioned but i think an possible solution would be to health gate shields. Make it so that a shield thats above BT can be outright destroyed in a single hit, instead it breaks and stays at 1 hp or 10% total Hp. This would make it so your not blocking constantly with weaker shields but at least 1/combat (assuming you have repair time after) you can lessen those bigger blows coming at you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't know if it's been mentioned but i think an possible solution would be to health gate shields. Make it so that a shield thats above BT can be outright destroyed in a single hit, instead it breaks and stays at 1 hp or 10% total Hp. This would make it so your not blocking constantly with weaker shields but at least 1/combat (assuming you have repair time after) you can lessen those bigger blows coming at you.
I think its come up before but it bears repeating, as this is absolutely a viable, simple compromise fix that I'd support.
Implementation could come in the form of a level 4ish talisman (affordable by level 7 or 8) that prevents the outright destruction of the attached shield.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's more power for the sake of more power.
Is it, though? I don't think I've seen a single person on this thread in either side saying they want other shields to be viable at blocking because shields as a mechanic are weak and shield characters should be buffed. It's a proposed changed for the sake of character customization and build diversity, with the consequence of making certain combinations a bit more powerful, which is very different.
I played for a good amount of levels as a Shield Champion, and never, not even once, I thought "Wow, this Sturdy Shield is so weak". In fact, with Sturdy Shield + Shield Ally, my shield had such an obscene amount of HP when I first got it that I barely knew what to do with it. What did make me frustrated as a player is that I had no other options. I couldn't choose to block a bit less to have some interesting options for my character because the gap in blocking capabilities between Sturdy and the other shields is like the Grand Canyon.
Now, after a very weird story event that happened to my character, she became an Animal Instinct Barbarian. I still use a shield, but I didn't even want to get Shield Block with this version 2.0 of my character. The shield, which used to be the focal point of her combat, is now just a little accessory to give me some extra defense when necessary. But now that I'm not focused on shields anymore, I've been showered with shield options to choose from, whilst before, when the shield was the most important mechanical aspect of my character, I had no choice at all. Is that balanced? Well, might be. But it's also counter-intuitive and extremely frustrating for many people.
Arcalan, its less about specific game balance than the fact that allowing more shields to be viable at blocking makes an already powerful strategy even more powerful, and invalidates "blocking shields" as a reasonable option.
More shields were viable at blocking at lower levels, and this was fine (if for no other reason than because it's printed in the game already, status quo, and so forth). "Blocking shields" are reasonable options alongside shields that can block (though not as much) and have utility effects at low levels. They're not invalidated then. Higher level doesn't necessitate that this paradigm change. It happens to in this case, but that's not a foregone MUST.
Arcalan, its less about specific game balance than the fact that allowing more shields to be viable at blocking makes an already powerful strategy even more powerful, and invalidates "blocking shields" as a reasonable option.More shields were viable at blocking at lower levels, and this was fine (if for no other reason than because it's printed in the game already, status quo, and so forth). "Blocking shields" are reasonable options alongside shields that can block (though not as much) and have utility effects at low levels. They're not invalidated then. Higher level doesn't necessitate that this paradigm change. It happens to in this case, but that's not a foregone MUST.
Whats being noted here is specialization.
As Shield Block becomes less of a minor benefit for your character and becomes more focal benefit because you're spending feats on it, the demands on your shield to make that feat investment "worth it" increase as well.
Its not any different than power attack and two handed weapons, except the base pool of two handed weapons is something like two thirds of a printed page long, and the base pool of shields is 4 lines.
Someone who is unspecialized ALWAYS has more options than a specialist.
Its also more notable here because, as a consequence of all shields having consistent stats based on the material rules for steel objects, shield blocking is more viable early on with any odd shield than it is later in the game.
Hilariously, that trait IS addressed if its clarified you can make shields out of special materials and the costs for those are made more reasonable...
Arcalan, its less about specific game balance than the fact that allowing more shields to be viable at blocking makes an already powerful strategy even more powerful, and invalidates "blocking shields" as a reasonable option.More shields were viable at blocking at lower levels, and this was fine (if for no other reason than because it's printed in the game already, status quo, and so forth). "Blocking shields" are reasonable options alongside shields that can block (though not as much) and have utility effects at low levels. They're not invalidated then. Higher level doesn't necessitate that this paradigm change. It happens to in this case, but that's not a foregone MUST.Whats being noted here is specialization.
As Shield Block becomes less of a minor benefit for your character and becomes more focal benefit because you're spending feats on it, the demands on your shield to make that feat investment "worth it" increase as well.
Its not any different than power attack and two handed weapons, except the base pool of two handed weapons is something like two thirds of a printed page long, and the base pool of shields is 4 lines.
Someone who is unspecialized ALWAYS has more options than a specialist.
Its also more notable here because, as a consequence of all shields having consistent stats based on the material rules for steel objects, shield blocking is more viable early on with any odd shield than it is later in the game.
Hilariously, that trait IS addressed if its clarified you can make shields out of special materials and the costs for those are made more reasonable...
That still doesn't make it a MUST. Yes, a character with Shield Block and a bunch of other class feats augmenting that feat has sunk more character resources into Shield Block as a mechanic, but at no point is this coming with fine print saying "by taking these feats/sinking this much focus into Shield Block, you willing give up the choice selection you were freely enjoying up to this point". A low level character only has so many resources to sink into anything, but they can still take 100% of all Shield Block related options available to them and pick shields anywhere along the blocking/utility spectrum. So it's unsatisfying to do the exact same thing at higher levels (sink 100% of all available resources into Shield Block, the same relative amount even if the absolute amount is more due to higher level), and get a lesser result (less choice variety) for my efforts.
I.e., I was never putting that much focus into shield use because I wanted to be shooting myself in the foot, options-wise. Especially since, up until a certain point, I wasn't.
...shooting myself in the foot, options wise.
Except... that's how all specialists eventually feel. My great weapon fighter player found herself in a fight recently where any hit she landed resulted in massive counter-damage, and she was in a bad way. Then she pulled out a longbow and kept fighting. It wasn't as good as her normal maul, but it was a setback associated with her normal specialization in melee weapons.
Did her entire gimmick suffer temporarily? Yes.
Was she actually denied options other than two handed weapons? No.
Exactly the same way your shield specialist should use a Sturdy or similar shield as their primary tool, and switch to a backup as appropriate.
...shooting myself in the foot, options wise.Except... that's how all specialists eventually feel. My great weapon fighter player found herself in a fight recently where any hit she landed resulted in massive counter-damage, and she was in a bad way. Then she pulled out a longbow and kept fighting. It wasn't as good as her normal maul, but it was a setback associated with her normal specialization in melee weapons.
Did her entire gimmick suffer temporarily? Yes.
Was she actually denied options other than two handed weapons? No.
Exactly the same way your shield specialist should use a Sturdy or similar shield as their primary tool, and switch to a backup as appropriate.
I know I say this a lot, but I don't think this is a fair comparison either. During her character planning, your two-handed Fighter had a bunch of options between weapon types, property runes and specific magic weapons, and being a two-handed Fighter at high level only increases your options via unlocking more runes and more magic item options, while still keeping your ability to make any of them useable by infusing them with Fundamental Runes.
What did happen in your situation was that she was in a fight where her main gimmick was not that useful, which can also happen to shield blockers (for example, using a Sturdy Shield against a creature that only has elemental and magical attacks), but has nothing to do with build variety. Being in a specific fight where your focus isn't that useful happens to everyone that's not a really well-planned Universalist Wizard or a Bard, and has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
I know I say this a lot, but I don't think this is a fair comparison either. During her character planning, your two-handed Fighter had a bunch of options between weapon types, property runes and specific magic weapons, and being a two-handed Fighter at high level only increases your options via unlocking more runes and more magic item options, while still keeping your ability to make any of them useable by infusing them with Fundamental Runes....shooting myself in the foot, options wise.Except... that's how all specialists eventually feel. My great weapon fighter player found herself in a fight recently where any hit she landed resulted in massive counter-damage, and she was in a bad way. Then she pulled out a longbow and kept fighting. It wasn't as good as her normal maul, but it was a setback associated with her normal specialization in melee weapons.
Did her entire gimmick suffer temporarily? Yes.
Was she actually denied options other than two handed weapons? No.
Exactly the same way your shield specialist should use a Sturdy or similar shield as their primary tool, and switch to a backup as appropriate.
Her specialization makes all weapons that aren't d12 two handed hammers suboptimal (or rather, it did until the Fighter proficiency capstone with legendary for everything came along - but let's ignore that for just a moment).
As a Fighter, she had to pick one weapon type to have an increased proficiency in for most of her career.
With her feats, she chose feats that were by far most optimal the bigger her damage die was.
Ultimately, the result was that two handed hammers were by far superior to any other choice for her fighter. How many two handed hammers are there to choose from?
It is the nature of specialization to restrict options to become better a specific thing. It was literally the case with Weapon Specialization for all if 3.x and PF1.
As you "specialize" in Shield Block, shields other than Sturdy's become less effective relatively.
Its an extremely appropriate metaphor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, the result was that two handed hammers were by far superior to any other choice for her fighter. How many two handed hammers are there to choose from?
Considering specific magic weapons and all the rune combinations you can make? You can have A LOT of variations with ANY weapon, even if they're all called something something Maul. And that's like, the worst case scenario for weapons, because Fighters, aside from something like Aldori Duelist, are the characters that specialize the most in a specific type of weapon. Still miles better than only having Sturdy Shield, Greater Sturdy Shield, Major Sturdy Shield, etc.
Ultimately, the result was that two handed hammers were by far superior to any other choice for her fighter. How many two handed hammers are there to choose from?Considering specific magic weapons and all the rune combinations you can make? You can have A LOT of variations with ANY weapon, even if they're all called something something Maul. And that's like, the worst case scenario for weapons, because Fighters, aside from something like Aldori Duelist, are the characters that specialize the most in a specific type of weapon. Still miles better than only having Sturdy Shield, Greater Sturdy Shield, Major Sturdy Shield, etc.
I mean, that's a function of weapons being customizable. Customizable shields does not appear to be an option, or at least one I'm not going to hold my breath for.
Regardless, the general point applies. Specialization always reduces options. Its part of the very nature of specialization.
...shooting myself in the foot, options wise.Except... that's how all specialists eventually feel. My great weapon fighter player found herself in a fight recently where any hit she landed resulted in massive counter-damage, and she was in a bad way. Then she pulled out a longbow and kept fighting. It wasn't as good as her normal maul, but it was a setback associated with her normal specialization in melee weapons.
Did her entire gimmick suffer temporarily? Yes.
Was she actually denied options other than two handed weapons? No.
Exactly the same way your shield specialist should use a Sturdy or similar shield as their primary tool, and switch to a backup as appropriate.
Shield block isn't the only shield-related thing you can focus on, though. Class feats augmenting Raising a shield also exist, and I can pursue all that become available to me, just like the previous example with Shield block. And for having the unmitigated gall to take 100% of all non-Shield Block shield related feats, my wide and various selection of shield options...
Doesn't tank the way it would with Shield Block specializing. Wait, what? I thought specializing required such an outcome. If it doesn't for non-Shield Block specializing, why should Shield Block specializing get the shaft?
...shooting myself in the foot, options wise.Except... that's how all specialists eventually feel. My great weapon fighter player found herself in a fight recently where any hit she landed resulted in massive counter-damage, and she was in a bad way. Then she pulled out a longbow and kept fighting. It wasn't as good as her normal maul, but it was a setback associated with her normal specialization in melee weapons.
Did her entire gimmick suffer temporarily? Yes.
Was she actually denied options other than two handed weapons? No.
Exactly the same way your shield specialist should use a Sturdy or similar shield as their primary tool, and switch to a backup as appropriate.
Shield block isn't the only shield-related thing you can focus on, though. Class feats augmenting Raising a shield also exist, and I can pursue all that become available to me, just like the previous example with Shield block. And for having the unmitigated gall to take 100% of all non-Shield Block shield related feats, my wide and various selection of shield options...
Doesn't tank the way it would with Shield Block specializing. Wait, what? I thought specializing required such an outcome. If it doesn't for non-Shield Block specializing, why should Shield Block specializing get the shaft?
I'm going to blow your mind - focusing on shields isn't the same thing as Specializing in Shield Block.
Because - and this is the trippy part - if it doesn't reduce your options, its not specialization.
Focusing on Raise Shield like that is just making you better at using shields.
Its sortof like how a ranger focusing on Dual Wield doesn't really reduce his pool of options for weapons from level 1-20, but a Fighter does (for most of it).