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.** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Thanks for doing the math! That's good info.
Theres some soft considerations to keep in mind though too - and if you accounted for these somehow, let me know.
The primary one is that a reduction of incoming criticals makes the flow of combat easier to adjust to, and makes combat inherently safer.
What I mean is, because healing exists reducing unexpected "spike" damage makes managing damage in general much easier. Incoming damage becomes predictable, allowing you to make better decisions about when healing is needed.
As well, criticals are more dangerous inherently - they are more likely to drop a character and inflict twice the wounded condition when they do. This makes them far more likely to cause a character death, making avoiding them in general extremely desirable.
As well, as far as conclusions go, is it really desirable to have this level of damage reduction be more broadly applicable? Isn't there an argument for making choosing to double your reduction come at the expense of other utility?
Finally, what if you ran the numbers with a hypothetical shield with 75% (or another reasonable proportion) to determine if rhr reduction in overall effectiveness is l
linear?
Shield calcs
Very interesting read! Thanks @Megistone!
For comparison, what would be interesting to know would be the difference in Raise Shield & Shield Block efficiency in between high and low AC classes, aka shield experts and dabblers. If I am not entirely mistaken a level 20 Druid or Warpriest (or Cloistered Cleric etc.) would be at AC42 only instead of AC45 (or even higher) and only have one opportunity to block. How do the percentages in between raise and block shift using the same model?
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.
Yes, this is a fair assessment of my point and I suppose many other people here. I think there's a disconnect between the importance Shield Block is given by some parts of the game (feats and class features) and others, that treat it like shield blockers don't need to ever have interesting items. It did feel punishing for my character, and some of my players shared similar frustrations.
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.
Sorry, but this part made my head spin a little. When I mentioned giving utility shields better stats, you said multiple times that an utility shield having somewhat decent stats for blocking would make the Sturdy Shield obsolete because of the value utility has, and that people don't really need the absurd amount of extra HP Sturdy has... but now you're saying Sturdy would always be the best choice no matter what? Am I misinterpreting something?
Sorry, but this part made my head spin a little. When I mentioned giving utility shields better stats, you said multiple times that an utility shield having somewhat decent stats for blocking would make the Sturdy Shield obsolete because of the value utility has, and that people don't really need the absurd amount of extra HP Sturdy has... but now you're saying Sturdy would always be the best choice no matter what? Am I misinterpreting something?
No, and yes. Its certainly less clear than I'd like it to be.
Its a complex situation in my head, and focusing on differing aspects leads to different things being brought forward. I'm probably communicating it badly, and it reconciles better in my head.
I'll think on it and see if I can explain the contradiction better later.
The summary version is though, I think shields like the Jawbreaker and Spined Shield are great, because they utility they offer is directly related to Blocking and therefore are alternative options if youre focusing on shield block. The Arrowcatcher would be the same, if it worked. These are fine to be on the spectrum with the Sturdy Shield, because they're all manipulating or supplementing normal blocking.
I've been referring to these as Blocking shields.
The Dragonslayer Shield, Spellguard Shield, and Forge Warden all offer utility distinct from normal blocking - the Dragonslayer allows for the blocking of some elemental attacks (which due to order of operations will "stack" with the wielders own resistances). Spellguard we've been over.
The Forgewarden is borderline and awkward, but I think there's a serious niche for offering your party elemental protection from one item, and i don't think it needs to rely on its blocking ability or shield block to justify its use. I'd honestly like to see more group protection shields.
These are the ones I've been referring to as Utility shields, and these are the ones I worry will make blocking shields pointless if you can choose one, and still have adequate blocking.
Hopefully that is more clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Presumably, it depends how often you will Shield Block. If you only occasionally raise your shield and/or have other things for your reaction, you will likely get buy with a level-appropriate hybrid like the Jawbreaker. If you are e.g. a Champion fully invested in Shield Block that has 3 reactions a round with which to shield block, you likely need to pick up a Sturdy Shield, or other full-on blocking option like the Invunerable Shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think though we can agree that there needs to be a line between adequate blocking and consumable at level especially for the cost. I don't think the "utility" shields need to be blocking over and over again. But they shouldn't be gone forever if you block just to save 6ish hp. I think the argument wouldn't even exist if the shields broke in one block but were still repairable but as they are right now it's going to be a major corner case situation where sacrificing that much wealth per hp saved plus the loss of AC and other bonuses when raised comes up.
I think though we can agree that there needs to be a line between adequate blocking and consumable at level especially for the cost. I don't think the "utility" shields need to be blocking over and over again. But they shouldn't be gone forever if you block just to save 6ish hp. I think the argument wouldn't even exist if the shields broke in one block but were still repairable but as they are right now it's going to be a major corner case situation where sacrificing that much wealth per hp saved plus the loss of AC and other bonuses when raised comes up.
One suggestion I've had (and I'm not taking credit - the general idea has been brought up by others) would be a cheap talisman that's affordable by level 7ish that prevents an unbroken shield from being destroyed in one blow.
Its a compromise, but it has the advantage of being very easy for devs to implement as a patch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I wish it was a lot less binary than what's currently described. It would be far more interesting to me if a shield champion was put into the position of
"okay, so this utility shield has a really good effect, but will generally break after blocking a single blow. Then there's this shield, which will take a few solid hits but has a pretty cool effect that I might be make use of. Finally, there are the sturdy shields if I just want to go for pure block"
If there needs to be shields that just aren't supposed to block at all (which honestly I'm not a massive fan of the notion, but I'll accept it being valid design space), I'd sooner they just said so one the tin "this shield can't shield block"-like. Having something like Spellguard-style shields have some small blocking potential (at least being capable of taking a smallish but not insignificant hit without being outright destroyed) at their level would only serve to open up new options for shield characters imo.
Edit: I think the talisman fix would be a reasonable options-enhancer to retroactively fix some of the shield issues without issuing errata (though the outright broken shields like arrow-catching still probably need targeted errata)
I think something like that would go a long way.
The fortifying pebble sort of does this at low levels. Perhaps that item could just be scaled by level? And sure, it's uncommon and (I believe) restricted to Pathfinders, which isn't an issue in PFS but may be in home games.
If there needs to be shields that just aren't supposed to block at all (which honestly I'm not a massive fan of the notion, but I'll accept it being valid design space), I'd sooner they just said so one the tin "this shield can't shield block"-like.
Floating Shield is that thing. You don't need to spend actions Raising your shield, but you can't Block with it.
But yes, there's more design space there for things like it.
(And I'm fine with Spellguard and Reflecting being in or adjacent to this space, due to the bonus offered. I just object to some of the other shields--like Forge Warden--that say "Block with me! Block with me!" and have the same stats as a wooden plank).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I've been trying to sit back some since this conversation has been so volatile. I know I have strong feelings about it myself, but I've been trying to focus on listening more.
One of the big issues that some people have with the current situation revolves around the feeling you get from the game that has been described as 'blocking the hit with your face/body to keep you shield from being destroyed'. I understand that claim completely from my perspective, but I think I also understand why others don't comprehend it. But let me try to explain what I see, since I think it goes somewhere.
It seems wrong to have the 'CHARACTER' seeing a big blow coming, and having them deciding, ohhh, no that one is so damaging, I better not let it hurt my shield. That is a story-line you should probably almost never have happen in your 'storytelling' session. This feels like this situation can, and will come up for these players.
But yes, from a rules mechanic standpoint, yes someone can say from a boardgame standpoint, a shield (barring things like arrow-catcher) never is forced to break without the players choice. So you never have to lose your item, unless you as a player think it is worth it.
I think once I inserted a couple words I hadn't been, I suddenly saw part of the problem why some see no issue, and others see a big problem. And understanding that might well have a perspective that might help some of those, such as myself that have had an issue with the character choosing to save their shield by not 'blocking' a big blow that will likely, or definitely take themselves down.
Many of us don't feel, per-se, that we are making the decisions. We are figuring out what or character's decisions would be. We are playing the Role in the story. If you keep that in mind, we are thinking and focusing on, do they choose to block this big blow? We base our decisions on the Why, based on what they would know, not based on what we necessarily know or feel. With that in mind, if we say our characters should fear death, they should choose to block a near-death blow right? But the game assumes you won't block the blow that would flat out destroy your shield, because, of course that would be foolish, unless it is to block a TPK situation, or you are saving yourself at the cost of your shield so you can do a heroic finish to defeat the enemy, or save the rest of your comrades with your last round of actions. BUT, having your character make the decision to SAVE THE SHIELD at the cost of taking a particularly nasty blow is not internally consistent as a general story. It feels wrong, and it pulls you out of the game, it pulls you out of the fun that drew you into the game. This is why I would say those who say it is 'Broken', say it is broken. It breaks the surface tension of the game leaving you wondering what just happened and why. The fact you're story gets broken, is why the game feels broken, and why it gets described that way. It isn't so much a technical, mathematical broken like saying that you divide the HP damage taken by a value, and for some situation that value is 0. that would be mathematically broken rule. This is simply described as broken because it breaks the game story, for the player.
Ok, I still feel like the rules 'should' be better engineered to keep that situation from coming up, but I think I have a way of re-skinning the whole situation that may help people not get pulled out of the game in that moment, if they can keep their thinking down a slightly different track.
As a player, we certainly get to determine what the decisions that our character makes, but it can be more than just that. When we made our character, we decided a lot about their past, including things that happened to our character that weren't our character's decisions, but happened to our character and formed our character. We need to keep in mind then that we have control over more than just our characters decisions. We also have some control over environmental factors affecting our characters that they don't have control over.
With this in mind, we have to be careful not to think, 'This hit would destroy the shield, we have to make the character choose not to block.' While that is what we the Player, from the game sense, may be choosing, to stop the shield from being destroyed. But to keep from being jarred from the story, we instead would let the story unfold more like. 'Sheildgar' the shield warrior sees the mighty blow coming and tries to block it with their shield, but it simply came too quickly, and they take the brunt of the blow falling back against the wall with a dazed look on their face before they passes out. Our character didn't choose to take the hit rather than the shield. He failed to manage to stop the blow. Reskinning the choice as not only the character's choice but being able to include controlling aspects of the hit the player gets to decide may make the current rules a bit more palatable for those who are having trouble with it now.
I felt like I should share my thought. It might help some struggling with the conflict they feel with the current system, and who knows, it might also help others who dislike those of us who say things should change so shields don't get flat out 'destroyed' so easily, so they might understand why we may be inclined to feel that way.
I'm going to try and summarize what I think your conclusion comes to Loreguard -
While our characters would certainly never choose to protect their shields with their face, its important to note that our characters don't actually make decisions.
The players make decisions, and then create the Narrative to fit it. Its up to you to decide why you didn't invoke the Shield Block Game Mechanic to block that attack which would have destroyed your shields, and there exist plenty of narratives less absurd than "I chose to block it with my face to save my shield."
Setting the narrative before making decisions can create all sorts of weird situations that are resolved by doing things in the opposite order, and choosing a narrative that makes sense.
Am I close?
The talisman may well be a way to deal with the issue with destroyed shields, but it would kind of become a mandatory consumable then, and I thought part of the game design was to reduce the number of mandatory items in the game? Why not make shields that are taken to 0 HP not be completely destroyed by default? Simply requiring them to have taken enough excess damage to exceed their max HP or BT for instance to be considered completely destroyed? This would/could be seen as being similar to the death by massive damage rule (although that might not be the terminology in 2nd edition I can't recall). So maybe a talisman might be a potential fix, but it seems like it shouldn't need to be.
Also, with those who have said weapon traits are different because by default, there are several different weapons with different traits, and shields are just shields, and that is why there are just one type of sturdy shield. However, you skipped the whole notice that there isn't just Shields. There are wooden and steel bucklers, wooden and steel shields, and tower shields. These were choices that affected hardness, hp, weight, handedness, abilities to block and take cover.
It is notable that only steel shields are allowed to be sturdy shields, and be used viable for blocking in the core book. There was variety, but it all got dropped for the sturdy shield, down to one type/line.
So I like Sturdy Steel shields, but they are basically a magic item with an exclusive rune on them. Most shields wont and shouldn't compare against them at level for repeated blocking, within their category. That is their niche and their niche is good. Utility shields and special materials should be capable of blocking at least one blow at level, without being destroyed. Most higher level shields, unless they are fragile because their utility is powerful enough it shouldn't be viable for blocking, the other utility shields should have have harnesses that go up some, but stay notably lower than the sturdy shield.
Maybe the way these harnesses of these shields are supposed to go up was tied to them potentially being made of harder materials, so maybe if the special materials rules are better clarified so we know how they should work, and perhaps their prices are tweaked if appropriate, that might be a solution for it.
But I don't see why we can't also have sturdy bucklers (or something similar, they wouldn't have the same stats as sturdy steel shields most likely) Why can't we have sturdy wooden shields, or maybe we are supposed to be able to, but perhaps they have sturdy darkwood shields?
Why weren't the Spellguard and Reflecting shields limited to being made from either Silver or Mithral as their material? They have a strong utility, which most people will agree on, and so you can easily see making the flavor of it require a special material, the default of which could even be described as fragile, which will of course make it less appealing as a blocking shield. Giving more flavor to the choice, and widening their variety of items to choose from.
BTW I want to thank whomever pointed out the Spined shield, I had not noticed how despite its low HP, at the low level it actually had the capability of withstanding a number of blows if it's other ability had not been used up. Granted, seeing another shield that had an effectively higher HP capability, made me feel more like it wasn't the Intention to have the standard be for utility shields at high level to be destroyed if some did choose to use it to block many on-level attacks.
I always flavored (both as a player and a GM) that Raise a Shield is simply positioning your shield in a smart way to deflect attacks, and Shield Block is a last resource attempt at forcefully blocking the attack after it already went past your defenses, which could severely damage the shield in the process. While I think the flavor intent behind these two actions could be more explicit, I also think this is easily solvable with a bit of creativity.
I want shields changed because of build variety and having interesting character options, and because I think having one alpha item that's clearly better than the rest at something with so much support from features and feats is terribly unfun, but the "using your body to save your shield" thing has never really been an issue to me.
I'm going to try and summarize what I think your conclusion comes to Loreguard -
While our characters would certainly never choose to protect their shields with their face, its important to note that our characters don't actually make decisions.The players make decisions, and then create the Narrative to fit it. Its up to you to decide why you didn't invoke the Shield Block Game Mechanic to block that attack which would have destroyed your shields, and there exist plenty of narratives less absurd than "I chose to block it with my face to save my shield."
Setting the narrative before making decisions can create all sorts of weird situations that are resolved by doing things in the opposite order, and choosing a narrative that makes sense.
Am I close?
@KrispyXIV:
I think you understand the mechanics of what I'm trying to say, but are still saying it in a way that I think other could potentially read as 'you are playing wrong', or it is wrong to play that way. So I'm going to try to rephrase it again using a bit more of your terminology.
There are people who look at this from a highly role-playing perspective, others whom I might say take more of a wargaming perspective of win the game perspective. I'm guessing that at least from my perspective, you are coming in from a more wargaming perspective. I appoligize if that isn't how you feel, but let me try to re-explain what I'm saying.
I'm saying that some players are focusing on their 'characters' decision. Going through that process is what gives them the most fun, in the game. So they are going to figure out what the character's choice is. And that will be, I will attempt to block the blow, like I did past blows. The role-player needs to realize they can make that choice, and decide to have the character move to block the blow. If you take that from them, they are very likely going to feel like they are no longer getting to play the game they love. That is what this situation is making them feel like they are being told. You aren't allowed to have your character make that decision, they need to make the game decision of saving their shield for the next blow it can withstand, if one comes up.
What I'm saying is that for that role player, in circumstances like this, that they need to realize there is a second layer (yes the player layer, rather than character layer) where they player can choose to make the circumstances fail for their own character's chosen action. To someone just making the best tactical decision the character's true motivation may be of little importance, but to the primary role-player, it is more important. In this case, the way the mechanics work, the game is designed in such a way the player 'should' choose to have the character's decision to fail without any roll, just based on the PLAYER choosing to have them fail. This is something the role-player player can then do by crafting the narrative to have the character's choice fail, so they game doesn't get derailed by an important item being destroyed.
For some role-players this is going to cry metagame for them which will potentially diminish their fun, but it is far better than in my opinion, trying to make the character want to make that same choice, which seems wrong. But this is a game, so given the rules as they stand, I think it is at least a way of dealing with the situation, and I think it could be less jarring that trying to come up with a believable excuse on why the Character would choose not to block. You just have to find an explanation as to why they failed to succeed.
Sorry, I recognize I'm wordy, but on the other hand, I recognize that that tends to be me. So I kind of have to acknowledge who I am. I hope that helps explain better.
But yes, I'm saying to avoid being as jarred by the situation, Role-players may need to remind themselves that in addition to figuring out the characters' decision, they need to choose the outcome of that decision for the common narrative.
@humblegamer:
As to what Raise Shield action is... I see it as committing some of your attention to having the shield in place to deal with incoming attacks. It helps turn hits into misses, or criticals into hits via quick deflections, as well as some being able to allow it to actually absorb some or part of blows by being more in the way that a simple deflection. [the last part being the choice of doing a block, which will normally jar the shield wielder, even if they end up managing to block all the damage, which that jarring could be seen as consuming the reaction as much as the reaction allowing the blocking]
So yes, I agree, as players who are focused on determining the characters' choices need to not only determine the character's choice, but then also choose the narrative (within the available scope of the players options) that will best advance the story, which might not include the character's action being successful, even if it is specifically an option for the 'players' choice.
If the shields didn't get destroyed so easily, it probably wouldn't even likely come up as an issue for such players, but I'm saying it might be a method to help keep from being completely jarred by what would be the otherwise obvious unfolding of the narrative that would follow.
So I want to make it clear I think both the Role-playing perspective, as well as the Wargming perspective are both valid approaches to this game. I don't think either should be identified as playing the game wrong. So I'd prefer to keep both styles viable even within the same table, mixing player types. I think this is one way to help the role-players with this situation, if we continue to have it.
@dmerceless:
I agree, I think that undamaged, high level utility shields should be able to block high level foes without real risk of complete destruction, but shouldn't be able to block as much damage as a sturdy shield, nor last as many hits before being broken. In fact being broken by a strong on-level attack in one hit, especially a critical is completely valid in my book for an 'average' non-sturdy shield. I think there is absolutely a spectrum that could be built up with something like spellguard/reflecting shields on one hand, other shields in the middle and sturdy shields and some form of sturdy bucklers on the other end. Allowing a character invested in blocking being able to use a block with a utility shield understanding he will lose the utility effect after it gets broken until he can get the item repaired. That is a completely valid game choice that should exist, rather than it generally be (you can use it but it means it is destroyed). Because that choice, is really a non-choice in all but extreme cases.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not like the talisman patch idea, it's a lazy fix and a money tax no other class option would have to do. I actually like Loreguard's "death by massive damage rule" for shields. Gives them all a lot more staying power.
I'm really hoping the Bastion archetype offers something similar to the Shield Ally Champion. Give them a feat that lets them get an increase in Hardness and HP/BT, so they can open up more shield options for themselves. It might make it redundant for Champions wanting to pick up Bastion, but it'd immensely help Fighters, Druids, and Warpriests.
I do not like the talisman patch idea, it's a lazy fix and a money tax no other class option would have to do. I actually like Loreguard's "death by massive damage rule" for shields. Gives them all a lot more staying power.
I'm really hoping the Bastion archetype offers something similar to the Shield Ally Champion. Give them a feat that lets them get an increase in Hardness and HP/BT, so they can open up more shield options for themselves. It might make it redundant for Champions wanting to pick up Bastion, but it'd immensely help Fighters, Druids, and Warpriests.
That's why I'm more in favor a rule that if it's above BT when it takes damage it becomes broken at 1hp if it takes enough be outright destroyed in a single hit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then they should review oricalcum material.That's why I'm more in favor a rule that if it's above BT when it takes damage it becomes broken at 1hp if it takes enough be outright destroyed in a single hit.I do not like the talisman patch idea, it's a lazy fix and a money tax no other class option would have to do. I actually like Loreguard's "death by massive damage rule" for shields. Gives them all a lot more staying power.
I'm really hoping the Bastion archetype offers something similar to the Shield Ally Champion. Give them a feat that lets them get an increase in Hardness and HP/BT, so they can open up more shield options for themselves. It might make it redundant for Champions wanting to pick up Bastion, but it'd immensely help Fighters, Druids, and Warpriests.
I agree but this could also be fixed by letting a shield be made of special materials instead of every specific shield be a unique thing. I mean again lets look at the numbers
Sturdy Shield LVL 16 GP 10,000 Hardness 17, HP 136, and BT 68. Made of Steel
Adamantine Shield LVL 16 GP 8,000 Hardness 13, HP 52, and BT 26. Adamantine shields are particularly sturdy but not as much as well built steel.
Oricalcum Shield LVL 17 GP 13,200 Hardness 16, HP 64, and BT 32. 1/day doesn't break.
And not a one of them can be anything special. I mean special materials are just a joke for shields. Hell the Greater Sturdy is just as competitive as blocking for a 1/2 or less the cost of either of those other options.
The worst part is that Sturdy is so linear in upgrades excpet a few levels that it could have possibly been meant to be a rune. For most levels its +2 Hardness +16 HP. It easily could have been the shield potency rune right there.
While I do get where you're coming from, you still need two actions to drink a potion with a bandolier. Otherwise, you would need to get from your backpack, which would require more actions (three).
And we're here with 15 pages explaining how preventing 6 damages is so awesome, it would be the only viable build in the whole game if the shield didn't break. OK, what about the following fighter build:
- dueling dance.
- bandolier
- 800 level 6 healing potion (they cost as much as a max-level sturdy shield, and heal 23 hp - more than one shield block with...
I'm gonna stop you right here, as you seem to believe a bandolier would allow you to draw and drink a potion as single action, which a bandolier allows you to do with set of tools, which are a specific type of thing. And not potions, sadly.
You also seem to be fine with the concept of 'more power, for the sake of more power', which is what letting people block all they want for 6 damage is. The game doesn't implode, but you're giving more power to builds that really don't need to be more powerful, just because.
I'm happy to look for a common solution with people, but thats not a solution - thats a completely unwarranted mega buff.
Remember, Toughness is +20 hp over 20 levels. Your 'infinite 6 point reduction' (which is actually way more than that with a sturdy shield) doesn't take a lot of action input to way exceed that.
And finally, the action cost of Shield Block is just a Reaction. You don't get to count the action to Raise Shield, because it actually already gave you its benefits, which are as significant as blocking with a Sturdy Shield on their own - thanks Megistone for doing the research!
I'm gonna stop you right here, as you seem to believe a bandolier would allow you to draw and drink a potion as single action, which a bandolier allows you to do with set of tools, which are a specific type of thing. And not potions, sadly.
Bandolierst still are more accessible for potions then the backpack, effectively reducing the number of actions userd
You also seem to be fine with the concept of 'more power, for the sake of more power', which is what letting people block all they want for 6 damage is. The game doesn't implode, but you're giving more power to builds that really don't need to be more powerful, just because.If the system does work so well how you always preach here this should make not much difference since
Shields don'T break in combat
and you can repair after each fight, so everythings peachy
I'm happy to look for a common solution with people, but thats not a solution - thats a completely unwarranted mega buff.
Sorry to say but it does not feel like you are looking for a solution, besides that the 'megabuff' is not that big after all
Remember, Toughness is +20 hp over 20 levels. Your 'infinite 6 point reduction' (which is actually way more than that with a sturdy shield) doesn't take a lot of action input to way exceed that.
Besides that I don't get where toughness comes from I don't think it is a big problem to have the 'infinite' 6 point reduction which eats up an action and a reaction every turn while toughness is only passive
and sturdy shields, even the lowest, already give way more then thisAnd finally, the action cost of Shield Block is just a Reaction. You don't get to count the action to Raise Shield, because it actually already gave you its benefits, which are as significant as blocking with a Sturdy Shield on their own - thanks Megistone for doing the research!
It is still PART of the cost, it has it's own benefits but you still HAVE to do this, it is not like you magically can just plop the shield into place without doing something for it
While I do get where you're coming from, you still need two actions to drink a potion with a bandolier. Otherwise, you would need to get from your backpack, which would require more actions (three).
Four, actually.
1: Retrieve pack2, 3: Retrieve item from pack
4: Drink
See footnote 3 on p273.
Total tangent, but there are intermediate options between bandolier and back pack. For instance, belt pouches and the like.The benefit of the backpack is that the first 2 Bulk inside of it don’t count towards your bulk limit. As a GM, I wouldn’t require characters to have bandoliers just to draw a potion in one interact action. It just needs to be in a pocket or on a belt pouch, and the L bulk needs to be accounted for.
Total tangent, but there are intermediate options between bandolier and back pack. For instance, belt pouches and the like.The benefit of the backpack is that the first 2 Bulk inside of it don’t count towards your bulk limit. As a GM, I wouldn’t require characters to have bandoliers just to draw a potion in one interact action. It just needs to be in a pocket or on a belt pouch, and the L bulk needs to be accounted for.
Belt Pouches are criminally under valued, especially when the Adventurer's Kit includes one. You already have a space for 4 L bulk items that are in "easy reach" for 1 action drawing. Potions, bombs, elixers etc... Bandoleers are great for additional and expanded options, on top of their obvious uses with skill kits, but not strictly necessary imo.
Removing the HP of shields leads to level 12 shield fighters ignoring 26 points of damage with 0 downside every turn. On top of getting +2 AC.
In any universe with infinite shield health, you'd have to chop the Hardness for all of them in half (at the very least). And then suddenly the same people would be complaining "it's not worth the reaction".
I still think it would be cool if certain shields (focused on blocking) were immune to some kind of damage, this way they would leave the raw stats for the Sturdy Shields (making them the same as fundamental runes), but would have situations where they would perform well above average (Bludgeoning, Slashing, Piercing, elemental damage, monster-specific). Another balancing factor that could be added was increased hardness against specific types of attacks, for example, holy shields against undead, devils or fiends, evil shields that works well against good-aligned divine followers (cleric, champions, etc). That would make special materials significantly different compared to specific shields and the sturdy shield.
Hopefully, in the future we get to see more interesting and complex options, that will at least remove some of the sting if they deem that current shields don't need changes.
As for the ratio. I think 1 point of hardness for every 3 points of HP.
Not sure about your ratio or sample values, but your point is accurate enough.
As for the ratio. I think 1 point of hardness for every 3 points of HP.Not sure about your ratio or sample values, but your point is accurate enough.I just gave values out of the top of my head that sounded about right for low level. I will admit the hardness I mentioned was too high. Steel Shield has stats: Hardness 5; HP (BT) 20 (10).
Having said that, the entire purpose of the numbers I gave was to illustrate my point. Hardness, HP, and BT are enough variables to have a wide variety of shields.
Indeed. You could call the "More Hardness, Less HP" Hardened Shields. And the "More HP, Less hardness" Ablative Shields.
Speaking off, does anyone know why BT is listed separately? Are there shields out there that have a BT that isn't half their HP? Because that could be another way to add more variability to shields.
BT is always half HP for everything that's been printed, including hazards and animated objects.
The only time it doesn't apply is for Petrified characters (where they explicitly do not have a BT at all).
You're right though that that could be made an independent metric (as nothing about the description of the Broken Threshold says that it is half maximum HP).
It occurs to me that a shield with a BT of 1 would be insanely good, as there's no bar between broken and destroyed, effectively giving it double the usual HP.
But yes, it's another knob that can be turned design-wise.
|
It occurs to me that a shield with a BT of 1 would be insanely good, as there's no bar between broken and destroyed, effectively giving it double the usual HP.
But yes, it's another knob that can be turned design-wise.
You could also change the definition of "Broken". For my house rules, I define it as "The shield's AC bonus is reduced by 1 point, but the shield can still provide some protection and absorb more damage". This means a broken buckler would not supply any AC bonus when raised, while a broken regular shield only applies a +1 AC bonus, but both can still absorb more damage until destroyed.
Removing the HP of shields leads to level 12 shield fighters ignoring 26 points of damage with 0 downside every turn. On top of getting +2 AC.How do they do that without spending action, reaction, magic item, feat nor free hand, just by being level 12 fighters ?
None of what you listed is actually a 'downside' (which is what was actually said, not 'no cost'), that's just the cost of getting unreasonable returns on the investment of those actions.
Its made reasonable by virtue of being limited by the item being used, and the fact that it can't reduce damage forever.
Removing the HP of shields leads to level 12 shield fighters ignoring 26 points of damage with 0 downside every turn. On top of getting +2 AC.How do they do that without spending action, reaction, magic item, feat nor free hand, just by being level 12 fighters ?
None of what you listed is actually a 'downside' (which is what was actually said, not 'no cost'), that's just the cost of getting unreasonable returns on the investment of those actions.
Its made reasonable by virtue of being limited by the item being used, and the fact that it can't reduce damage forever.
I'm not sure that 26 points of damage reduction per round, spread over two attacks, is broken even if it's infinite. Your typical 12th level creature deals about 30 points per attack, so your incoming damage is approximately halved (13 points per hit). But at the same time, you're taking a serious hit to your damage output, both in action cost (actions spent on Raise Shield and reactions spent on Shield Block instead of Attack of Opportunity or some other reaction, using a one-hander + shield instead of a two-hander) and in opportunity cost (the number of feats, having a significant amount of wealth bound up in your shield, etc.).
You might however argue that the ability to focus this strongly on defense is bad from a meta-game perspective: high defense and low offense leads to long, drawn-out fights. But that's a different argument than it being unbalanced.
I should point out at 12th Level, a shield focused fighter will almost assuredly have Paragon Stance, so it's not 1 action per turn to Raise Shield, it's 1 action for the entire fight.
The other considerations still stand though.
I should point out at 12th Level, a shield focused fighter will almost assuredly have Paragon Stance, so it's not 1 action per turn to Raise Shield, it's 1 action for the entire fight.
The other considerations still stand though.
FWIW, if that feat (also, it's called Paragon's Guard) ends up being too powerful under infinite durability shields, then the feat can be toned back. Eg. "if you use Shield Block, your AC bonus decreases by 1 until the start of your turn" or something along those lines.
And besides, the fighter is still limited in how many reactions he can take per round. Which, as best I can tell, is two maximum (assuming no AoO).