You and Krispy keep talking like anyone who disagrees with you is misinterpreting how shields work or what's the intent behind it. No, we know how it currently works, and we don't like it. That's the whole point! You two keep treating peopls as if expressing dissatisfaction with a mechanic from a fun perspective was a crime and we can only not like something if we have three academic articles and four spreadsheets to back it up.
Ideally, we could reach a point where you could be happy or at least content with the system as it works.
I dont think the core system is likely to change - so the best option seems to be putting the mechanics into context, presenting solutions to the practical complications you've identified, and pointing to solutions already in the works for your concern.
As far as people being unhappy goes, I have 9 players who have never looked at these forums that when asked if they had any concerns with shields, looked at me like I was crazy. The Champions are lynchpins for both parties I run, and all the players recognize that from play.
I dont think there's actually enough discontent (or mechanical need) to see massive errata here, but who knows - I could be wrong.
If I'm not though, the only option is to find things you like about the current system or not play a shield user, despite then being really good. I think there's stuff to like about this system, so I'm sharing it.
Who among you who want's "a reasonable amount of hp while maintaining featured stuff" would go with the Jawbreaker one?
From looking at a handful of heavy hitter type creatures, I would say i would likely at least carry one if I came across it and knew I might be getting hit with bites/swallows. It can tank a non-critical hit from every on level creature i looked at without being out right destroyed, and could survive most of the average ones without breaking. That's what I would be looking for a shield with utility it doesn't have to be amazing in HP/BT but if I can't not lose it in one hit against on lvl foes then it's not a shield I would ever use if I plan to block often.
I think the key is, as a shield character you'd (general you, not trying to talk for you) be likely to use it if it was the new shield you found on an adventure.
Would you agree with that?
Found it? Didn't have access to a comparable level study? Was fighting a lot of wild animals? Sure.
Its not bad. But I wouldn't buy it when building a character for a generic campaign.
To be fair, if you're buying a shield blind you're likely best going with the option that has the highest base stats that favors reliability anyway. The best "choice" would be a sturdy shield, even if other options existed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shortly: Want better stats? You could have some, but the extra bonuses you'll have will be not so good as those shield with almost base stats.
I'm saying that those effects (I was ignoring the bonus vs swallow whole) the stats are "eh." Not stand out, but functional. Sure, I'd like the shield to have a bit more hp and I'd like the effect to have a higher fort dc, or some effects on a success (even if it is just 1d6 more damage instead of 1d6 persistent damage), due to how high level 12 creature fort saves are.
But the shield isn't bad the way arrow catching and forge warden are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the key is, as a shield character you'd (general you, not trying to talk for you) be likely to use it if it was the new shield you found on an adventure.
Would you agree with that?
No. Definitely not. Well, I would maybe consider using it over the 7th level Sturdy Shield, which is an item 5 levels lower than it. Maybe. Over the 10th level version? Absolutely not. And it's still 2 levels lower. I won't even talk about the 13th level version.
Sorry but if the Jawbreaker Shield is the prime example we have for future blocking shields, I 100% keep my opinion that shield blockers who want fun options are screwed.
No. Definitely not. Well, I would maybe consider using it over the 7th level Sturdy Shield, which is an item 5 levels lower than it. Maybe. Over the 10th level version? Absolutely not. And it's still 2 levels lower. I won't even talk about the 13th level version.
To clarify my position, I was comparing it to the level 10 sturdy shield. I'd drop it like it's hot once I had a level 13 sturdy. Typing and editing is slow at present.
I still think the effect is weak for the level, but it isn't forge warden bad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Jawbreaker Shield reads to me like something where the AP writer was more concerned with making something cool and thematic than actually making something with a generally useful effect (and that's fine! Especially if there are a lot of bite attacks in that AP)
However, I don't think it's a good example of general shield design going forward - outside of fighting the things which I spoiled below that you fight in an AP it is very understatted for what it actually does.
All that said, I would see the Jawbreaker as being in a good spot in its design. It has stats enough to do what it's supposed to for its level, unlike shields like the aforementioned forge warden. As an example of general shield design I think it falls flat though - if I shield such as this was released in a core book I would find it supremely underwhelming.
The Jawbreaker Shield reads to me like something where the AP writer was more concerned with making something cool and thematic than actually making something with a generally useful effect (and that's fine! Especially if there are a lot of bite attacks in that AP)
Oh yeah, totally. Hence my earlier comment about "found it, fighting the right stuff, didn't have access to better" I'd use it. Its super thematic and I love that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and Krispy, about your experience with your players and no one being dissatisfied with shields... that's definitely not what I experienced so far. I had three potential shield users in games I ran up to this point.
The Shield Fighter in the highest level game I ran so far started looking at the item shop I made available to them at level 5 or so and asked me why this one shield here has such an absurd amount of stats over the other ones. I tried to explain it to him in the best way possible, but he still wasn't very happy about it. He wanted a cool shield, but he also wanted to block. Well, I did give him what he wanted, but I also purposefully strayed away from the current examples we had and made a shield with 80% of the hardness and HP from sturdy ane a nice effect. I also said he could upgrade it at the levels Sturdy has if he wanted to keep this proportion. Player 1 was blissed, but because of what I did, the expectations of the core game left him very disappointsd.
In other game, I had another shield Fighter who wanted to focus on tower shields. He thought it was really cool that he could use shield block and also have a bigger bonus to AC at the cost of bulk, speed and actions. Played very well to the concept of an impassable wall. Player 2 wasn't very happy to know that tower shields can only block from levels 1-3. Player 2 went two-handed instead.
Player 3 is actually the only one completely happy about the state of his shield... but player 3 is a Cloistered Cleric that never used a weapon in his life and only stays at distance healing and buffing. He just wanted more AC. I think that says something.
My players aren't English speakers, so I am very sure they weren't contaminated by the forums.
So lots of non-gnomes wield flickmaces.Do they?
How have you arrived at the determination of "lots"? I ask because there could be a matter of scale and of representative sample making it look like "lots" when it's really a small percentage.
Of course, I'm not certain of that. I just find it a realistic possibility on account of my own experience thus far being that I haven't heard of anyone using a flickmace (gnomish character or otherwise) anywhere but in a few posts on this forum which suggest "lots" of people are doing it.
Which is to say the "dominant option" is not so clearly dominant as to have wide swathes of players gravitating to it because the perceived mechanical superiority it tempered by the hoops needed to jump through to use one.
My experiences say Flickmaces are another matter entirely - one of my players (a Champion) asked permission to take the feats required to get and use one (obtained via Shifting Rune), and i let him.
He abandoned it after a session when he decided the whole situation felt dirty on use, and apologized.
The same has not been true for Sturdy Shields, which are only an "alpha choice" along one axis of shield design.
...examples of disillusioned shield users...
What is striking me here is that given how shields work, especially over an extended level range, it might have been better to *not* grant the Shield Block feat to any class as a starter ability.
I am not saying the feat is a trap option, because it is a good feat as long as it lasts, however considering how shield do work at very low levels in comparison to the higher levels, the feat and shield combination is something that might create a lot of false expectations.
The question that I am asking myself here is: Would anybody but the most dedicated shield users pick up the feat and/or follow-up feats (and probably require a sturdy or similar shield) if it were a conscious decision?
Anbody fighting with two-weapons, a two-handed weapon or swashbuckling style does not need it, so the feat is lost on many Fighters. Druids can not use sturdy shields and usually don't need any shield at all if the go wild shape or use typical Druid weapon e.g. a longspear. Many Warpriest deities fav weapons are two-handed weapons too. Which leaves Champions as the (perceived) main users of shields, who however might easily opt out of shields in order to use a higher dice reach weapon to strengthen their precious Champions Reaction.
Replacing the fixed Shield Block feat with a general feat (or a short selection of general feats), would have several effects. First many characters would not receive a feature that they are never going to use in the first place. Second, all "dabblers" could still use shields for AC and effects while not having to worry about shield HP and hardness and steadily dimnishing feat efficiency as they level up. Third it would be a conscious player decision to go for blocking feats and blocking shields as one form of specialisation.
And while this approach might fix several psychological issues that revolve around the "Shield Block" general feat what it would not fix however would be the (perceived or real) missing diversity regarding the selection of shields suitable for blocking. So instead of fixing shields, this is more of an fix the shield users approach.
I mean I do see the difference Flickmace is good but others reasonable options exist, Sturdy Shield is really the only choice high on if you want to block more than 1-2 times a fight without being an issue.
But that being said if we are okay with the logic of "Blockers" buying the best shield for blocking hands down then it should come as no surprise that others will gravitate to the best option for the job they won't done. It shouldn't feel gamey or dirty to learn how to use the best tool for the job. I mean I have seen my uncles (carpenters) do repairs out at the deer camp without power tools. But let me tell you they would prefer the option to use them anytime they can.
What is striking me here is that given how shields work, especially over an extended level range, it might have been better to *not* grant the Shield Block feat to any class as a starter ability.
I think it would certainly help put into perspective what you're getting when your class gives you Shield Block - a bonus General Feat, which may or may not be useful to, but which you probably shouldn't lose sleep over if you don't get to use it.
If a Fighter had the option of getting Toughness or Canny Accumen at level 1... well, most Fighters probably wouldn't take Shield Block, I don't think. Maybe not even Shield Fighters - I'd take their level 1 raise shield as a reaction feat and accumen instead most times.
Its likely there for Champions and Fighters to alleviate the feeling of it as a feet tax if they want to follow that route, but that really doesn't change what it is - a minor bonus that applies to some characters.
As you noted, its really not much of a perk at all for Druids or Warpriests, who will have to go far off the beaten path of normal play to make use of it anyway.
As you noted, its really not much of a perk at all for Druids or Warpriests, who will have to go far off the beaten path of normal play to make use of it anyway.
Eh, it’s comparable to the Shield Cantrip, which is commonly used as a third action by casters. So If they can handle the bulk, and the use of one hand, they get 1 better AC and also a shield that doesn’t go away after the first block, at low levels. At higher levels the Warpriest needs to decide if they would rather have a blocking shield or not, and the Druid straight up does not get that option in Core. Druid-useable blocking options are one of the things I’d like to see from the APG.
As you noted, its really not much of a perk at all for Druids or Warpriests, who will have to go far off the beaten path of normal play to make use of it anyway.Eh, it’s comparable to the Shield Cantrip, which is commonly used as a third action by casters. So If they can handle the bulk, and the use of one hand, they get 1 better AC and also a shield that doesn’t go away after the first block, at low levels. At higher levels the Warpriest needs to decide if they would rather have a blocking shield or not, and the Druid straight up does not get that option in Core. Druid-useable blocking options are one of the things I’d like to see from the APG.
The fact that Sturdy Shields are described as metal actually does bother me a LOT. That is almost certainly flavor text which stands as rules text simply because so unambiguous. Id houserule this in a heartbeat for a druid... but the reality is its so obscure it will likely never come up.
The fact that Sturdy Shields are described as metal actually does bother me a LOT. That is almost certainly flavor text which stands as rules text simply because so unambiguous. Id houserule this in a heartbeat for a druid... but the reality is its so obscure it will likely never come up.As you noted, its really not much of a perk at all for Druids or Warpriests, who will have to go far off the beaten path of normal play to make use of it anyway.Eh, it’s comparable to the Shield Cantrip, which is commonly used as a third action by casters. So If they can handle the bulk, and the use of one hand, they get 1 better AC and also a shield that doesn’t go away after the first block, at low levels. At higher levels the Warpriest needs to decide if they would rather have a blocking shield or not, and the Druid straight up does not get that option in Core. Druid-useable blocking options are one of the things I’d like to see from the APG.
Probably would be over powered but maybe a cantrip that lets a druid grow a wooden shield on their arm, would give the AC and have at least a basic destructible shield availble when you needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question that I am asking myself here is: Would anybody but the most dedicated shield users pick up the feat and/or follow-up feats (and probably require a sturdy or similar shield) if it were a conscious decision?
If you push the feat back for fighters and champions to, say, 4th level. Then no, I probably would at that point be looking at the relative durability of shields compared to 4th and 5th level creatures and going "this doesn't look that good." Compare to say, Shielded Stride.
Push it back to, say, 10+ and it just starts screaming "trap option."
A champion would be the only class that would even consider opting in, due to the way shield-block champions work (1. being able to block for an ally, 2. getting bonus hardness and HP, 3. being able to shield block AND retributive strike).
Nobledrake, you can say what you want but that weapon is definitive as main one hand weapon.
You can't change facts.
Nor make me upset.
I think the takeaway from his statement on the subject - and mine - is intended to be that just because its the "best" option, doesnt mean its "dominant".
"Everyone" is not using flickmaces.
They come up occasionally in optimization discussions, but the reality is they require oblique and obviously gamey character choices to gain proficiency in and access to, to the point that some people find it distasteful and others consider it not worth it.
As a GM, for me it came up one time and self corrected.
But that hits the nail on the head, Flickmaces are the best but they aren't the only way to play 1-H weapons plenty of other options are viable and useable without you feeling you had to choose a flickmace. Thats the complaint here is that outside of a few newer options that are still only pushing bare viability you get one and only one choice to use for shield block.
But that hits the nail on the head, Flickmaces are the best but they aren't the only way to play 1-H weapons plenty of other options are viable and useable without you feeling you had to choose a flickmace. Thats the complaint here is that outside of a few newer options that are still only pushing bare viability you get one and only one choice to use for shield block.
And you don't think there's the tiniest chance thats because shield block is inherently one dimensional? it only interacts with two stats, so whichever shield has the best value in those two stats is always going to be the objectively best choice.
Its explicitly per the shield creation guidelines the benchmark to which all other shields are created, and all other shields should have worse blocking stats than it.
Luckily, they put the Sturdy Shield in the core rulebook and made it Common so everyone had access.
Whats weird here is, they effectively prevented power creep on shields by printing the best option first and making it the baseline - but now people are complaining they can't choose lesser options (because all options are explicitly less good at blocking than Sturdy's, they are by definition The Best per the Game Mastery guide).
I agree that shields are a bit one dimensional, part of the problem lies there. If shields were like weapons with one set of stats per type and then had runes for abilities/HP/Hardness instead of different shields then that would have solved a lot. That would also mean that the best blocking shield probably would use more of its customization on upping hardness/hp instead of abilities but the player would have more choice in that decision.
And yes for now and likely for the foreseeable future Sturdy will be the top tier and I don't think thats an issue. The issue is that most of the other shields aren't even close to that same level meaning it's a choice of Block 3-5 hits a combat or block 2-3 hits a combat and then repair. It's block 3-5/repair or block 1 and buy a new shield for a substantially higher cost.
Yes I think the single dimension of them is the flaw. Not only can't we customize them but we have the same shield just being made better as the player levels up. Runes for abilities and HP and Hardness would have helped. Then the choice would likely be Potency (boost AC or Hardness) Properties like more HP, effect when raised, effect when blocking.
Whats weird here is, they effectively prevented power creep on shields by printing the best option first and making it the baseline - but now people are complaining they can't choose lesser options (because all options are explicitly less good at blocking than Sturdy's, they are by definition The Best per the Game Mastery guide).
Yes, Shield Block is one dimensional. But what's the point? Everyone knows about that. It can be made less one dimensional with other shield options that interact with it. Also, yes, Sturdy Shield is the best option if everything you ever want to get out of your shield is blocking. Except that's not how every character who uses shield block ever wants to be built? A lot would choose to build other ways if it wasn't a completely binary option of being the absolute best at blocking or doing it being not worth it at all.
As I've said before as an example on my own game, I made a shield in my game that's not as good as Sturdy at blocking, but also not that much worse, and has a nice little effect, and he absolutely chose it over the Sturdy Shield. Not because it's stronger, no, the shield was still objectively worse than Sturdy at blocking, and its effect was completely unrelated to blocking. He chose because it was an interesting option that was still viable at blocking, even if not the best. It's the same reason not every one-handed character chooses to use a Flickmace. Except that for shield blockers, you can only choose the "Flickmace".
A lot would choose to build other ways if it wasn't a completely binary option of being the absolute best at blocking or doing it being not worth it at all.
You'll note that earlier in the thread I said repeatedly that the Sturdy shield is dead as soon as a Utility Shield is adequate at blocking. There's no need for the full damage reduction of a Sturdy Shield, so you'll almost always take utility if its even reasonable to use.
Note that when I say Utility Shield here, I'm talking about a Spellguard or similar - the Jawbreaker is just a variety of blocking shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'll note that earlier in the thread I said repeatedly that the Sturdy shield is dead as soon as a Utility Shield is adequate at blocking. There's no need for the full damage reduction of a Sturdy Shield, so you'll almost always take utility if its even reasonable to use.
Note that when I say Utility Shield here, I'm talking about a Spellguard or similar - the Jawbreaker is just a variety of blocking shield.
And I've repeatedly said that the Spellguard shield is crazy strong, if not a bit overpowered. If there's one shield in the game that shouldn't block, it's that one, I never disagreed with that. The problem is that you're treating it like every single utility shield in the game was the Spellguard shield. They're not. You could have higher level versions of the Lion Shield, or a Force Shield with better stats, or a Dragonslayer Shield with better stats, and I bet none of those would come close to breaking the game.
About the blocking shields, none of them feel even close to worth using over a Sturdy shield for me. And believe me, I tried very hard to believe they are, because I really wanted to get rid of the Sturdy Shield. But I also don't want to handicap my character for little to no benefit. A blocking shield should either lose a small amount of the stats from Sturdy for a minor benefit, or lose a significant amount for a significant benefit. The problem is that all of them, except for maaaybe the Reforging one, lose a significant amount of stats for a very minor benefit.
You could have higher level versions of the Lion Shield, or a Force Shield with better stats, or a Dragonslayer Shield with better stats, and I bet none of those would come close to breaking the game.
There's nothing in this statement I actually disagree with.
I just think that the Core Rulebook is fine without them. I'd absolutely want to see a Greater and Major Spined Shield for example, as well as better versions of those you mentioned down the road (and some sort of fix for the Arrowcatcher Shields).
I've been arguing that the Sturdy Shield is good for the game (this whole discussion has only convinced me more of that, and has solidified it in my thinking as the Failsafe For Shield Blockers Shield that ensures that they'll have at least one Common item that is amazing for them), and that the design in the core rulebook is essentially fine, with plenty of room for more shield options to come in down the line.
and that the design in the core rulebook is essentially fine, with plenty of room for more shield options to come in down the line.
Essentially fine except for...
Adamantine Shields
Cold Iron Shields
Darkwood Shields
Dragonhide Shields
Mithril Shields
Orichalcum Shields
Silver Shields
Arrow Catching Shields
Forge Warden Shields
Which is only, you know, most of them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just think that the Core Rulebook is fine without them. I'd absolutely want to see a Greater and Major Spined Shield for example, as well as better versions of those you mentioned down the road (and some sort of fix for the Arrowcatcher Shields).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you might have understood what I meant a bit wrong. When I say "Force Shield with better stats", or "Dragonslayer shield with better stats", I'm talking about better stats for their level. Which would require changing the baseline of those shields in the first place. If a shield isn't good enough to be worth blocking with in the first place, making higher level versions with better stats that are also bad for blocking at their level doesn't help in the slightest, it just creates more gold traps.
I've been arguing that the Sturdy Shield is good for the game (this whole discussion has only convinced me more of that, and has solidified it in my thinking as the Failsafe For Shield Blockers Shield that ensures that they'll have at least one Common item that is amazing for them).
I obviously disagree with the core statement here. For me, the Sturdy Shield doesn't feel like a Failsafe, it feels like something that drastically reduces the amount of useful shields you can actually design, because now, instead of having a couple of shields that compete for blocking and a choice between them, you have one obvious choice and a bunch of other things that try to catch up as being viable and probably never will.
The one thing you said a bunch of times and I never, ever understood in this discussion is that this creates choice. If any, it creates a binary choice that's made at the point you choose that your character wants to use shield blocking. From that point on, you won't be given any option for the next 19 levels, supposing you choose "yes". How interesting.
In my opinion, there would be so many better ways to handle this. Make a shield rune and say it can't be apply to certain shields. Divide shields between Deflecting Shields (that can only be raised) and Blocking Shields (that can be raised and used to block) and give the latter ones a baseline of stats and modify it a bit for special cases. Let people reinforce a shield when they start their day. I think almost any way of handling this design would be better than creating one alpha item that's as boring as it can be, but also obviously the best.
I just made every magic shield a Sturdy Shield of the appropriate level and moved on.
Not had any problems. Enemies still shred shields unless you trade up for higher level shields, but now the shields do something other than "not die in 1 hit."
My two cents after 13 pages?
To answer OP's question: Yes, sturdy shields are good for the game, even elementary, as they set the upper hardness and HP limits for shields. The gold standard for blocking so to say.
However, and this is a big big big big big however, execution of most (not all) other shields seems way off (also see @Draco18s's list) and should really be looked at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Admittedly, I didn't read all 13 pages of this discussion, but from what I have read, you'd think the only thing you can do with a shield is use the Shield Block reaction. The AC benefit of raising a shield is worth it regardless of using the Shield Block reaction. There are plenty of other things to do with your reaction even if you have your shield raised.
There's been a lot of back and forth on that.
The point that's been brought up (and anyone can correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting you) is that this contributes to the idea that people are being punished for pursueing feat trees that improve shield block - while anyone can pick up any shield they want for AC, someone invested in Shield Block is "forced" to pick up a Sturdy Shield and they "lose" shield options.
But if you care about optimization, that situation is always true - since Shield Block only scales based on two values, its always going to be possible to identify the "best" blocking shield by looking for the highest numbers, and everything else is suboptimal by that standard.
Admittedly, I didn't read all 13 pages of this discussion, but from what I have read, you'd think the only thing you can do with a shield is use the Shield Block reaction. The AC benefit of raising a shield is worth it regardless of using the Shield Block reaction. There are plenty of other things to do with your reaction even if you have your shield raised.
No one is discounting this it's been discussed, the issue is that right now almost any shield with an effect can only be raised out side of a few cases. Due to damage scaling most shields other than sturdy can't survive even 1 average hit from on level monsters and if they are outright destroyed no repair option. It's gone and the gold spent along with it. For some options (spellguard) this seems like a good trade off. But when the special ability is either so niche or requires the shield to be blocked with to work then you are creating high cost consumables.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have done the math about how effective is raising a shield, and then shield blocking, relative to incoming damage, at different levels and with different shields.
I assumed a typical sword & board Fighter vs an equal-level monster Striking twice with high attack and high damage.
Since a fighter could block twice with the appropriate feat, I included but not commented the double block cases.
Fighter's AC = 10 +1 (level) +2 (Trained) +4 (Breastplate) +1 (Dex) = 18
Monster's attacks: +9/+4, 1d6+3
Incoming Damage = 7.15
With raised shield = 5.525 (22.73% reduction)
Blocking with Steel Shield = 2.50 (further 54.68% reduction vs +2 AC only, 64.98% total)
Shield blocking is very powerful at start. I considered the case where minimum damage (4) is under the shield's hardness, reducing the block's effectiveness a bit.
Fighter's AC = 10 +6 (level) +2 (Trained) +7 (+1 Full Plate) = 25
Monster's attacks: +17/+12, 2d8+9
Incoming Damage = 22.5
With raised shield = 17.1 (24% reduction)
Blocking with Spellguard/Lion's/Spined Shield = 12.99 (further 24.04% reduction vs +2 AC only, 42.27% total)
Blocking with Minor Sturdy Shield = 11.62 (further 32.05% reduction vs +2 AC only, 48.36% total)
Blocking with a lower level Sturdy Shield gives the same average damage reduction as the action of raising it. When using a different shield, the block is still very comparable.
Fighter's AC = 10 +12 (level) +4 (Expert) +8 (+2 Full Plate) = 34
Monster's attacks: +26/+21, 3d10+14
Incoming Damage = 38.125
With raised shield = 28.975 (24% reduction)
Blocking with Arrow-Catching Shield = 24.865 (further 14.18% reduction vs +2 AC only, 34.78% total)
Shield is not broken in only 1/1000 normal hits, blocking twice not considered
Blocking with Jawbreaker Shield = 20.755 (further 28.37% reduction vs +2 AC only, 45.56% total)
Blocking twice = 18.775 (35.2% reduction vs +2 AC only, 50.75% total)
Blocking with Greater Sturdy Shield = 18.7 (further 35.46% reduction vs +2 AC only, 50.95% total)
Blocking twice = 16.225 (44% reduction vs +2 AC only, 57.44% total)
Now with a non-blocking shield the damage reduction is half as effective as the baseline bonus AC.
With a Jawbreaker Shield we are again in a good range, and it's quite likely that it won't break unless the blow was a critical hit.
The Sturdy Shiled I used here is 1 level higher, and the average damage reduction you get from blocking is greater than what you get just by raising it; I didn't use the level 10 one because its hardness is very close to the Jawbreaker's.
Fighter's AC = 10 +20 (level) +6 (Master) +9 (+3 Full Plate) = 45
Monster's attacks: +38/+33, 4d10+22
Incoming Damage = 61.6
With raised shield = 48.4 (21.43% reduction)
Blocking with Reflecting Shield = 43.96 (further 9.17% reduction vs +2 AC only, 28.64% total)
Shield is always at least broken, blocking twice not possible
Blocking with Supreme Sturdy Shield = 33.6 (further 30.58% reduction vs +2 AC only, 45.45% total)
Blocking twice = 29.4 (39.26% reduction vs +2 AC only, 52.27% total)
At this point, blocking with a non-sturdy shield brings very little effect, and we already know that the shield will be destroyed unless the damage roll is very low (0.35% chance).
The Supreme Sturdy Shield, despite being a level lower than the opponent, does an excellent job at blocking, again reducing damage more or less the same than what a +2 AC has already done.
In general, it seems that raising their shield nets our Fighter a 21-24% damage reduction against the enemy's two Strikes.
Leaving aside what happens at level 1 (I would nerf the Steel Shield's hardness honestly, if it didn't have to last for 3+ levels), a more or less level-appropriate Sturdy Shield block adds at least as much, often more. This means that the Shield Block reaction is as powerful, or more powerful, than the action of raising the shield at reducing incoming damage.
When using a different shield we have comparable results with any special shield in the lowish levels, and only with the Jawbreaker Shield later on, where the others fall very very short.
EDIT: made a couple things clearer.
Admittedly, I didn't read all 13 pages of this discussion, but from what I have read, you'd think the only thing you can do with a shield is use the Shield Block reaction. The AC benefit of raising a shield is worth it regardless of using the Shield Block reaction. There are plenty of other things to do with your reaction even if you have your shield raised.There's been a lot of back and forth on that.
The point that's been brought up (and anyone can correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting you) is that this contributes to the idea that people are being punished for pursueing feat trees that improve shield block - while anyone can pick up any shield they want for AC, someone invested in Shield Block is "forced" to pick up a Sturdy Shield and they "lose" shield options.
But if you care about optimization, that situation is always true - since Shield Block only scales based on two values, its always going to be possible to identify the "best" blocking shield by looking for the highest numbers, and everything else is suboptimal by that standard.
Thats fairly accurate other than the last bit. Optimaztion would be picking the Flickmace over anonother 1H. In this case "suboptimal" is becomes a consumable if I use it most of the time.