Sooo... Forge Warden is a consumable?Uh, I don't see why it would be.
So this is bonus flavor text that doesn't mean anything.
Activate [free-action] command (fire); Trigger You use the
forge warden to Shield Block an adjacent creature’s
attack and the shield takes damage; Effect The attacking
creature takes 2d6 fire damage.
Because it's a level 10 item with Hardness 6 and 24 HP. Creatures that are level 8 do in the neighborhood 2d8+10 damage, a single average hit will break a Forge Warden.
Forge warden is Hardness 6, HP 24 right?
So, it works vs. any attack between 7 and 29 damage without destroying the shield. That is below anything but 'extreme' average damage for a level 10 creature.
There will be plenty of chances to use this ability without losing the shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, it works vs. any attack between 7 and 29 damage without destroying the shield. That is below anything but 'extreme' average damage for a level 10 creature.
They might not destroy it, but they sure as well will BREAK it, which renders all of its AMAZING SUPER AWESOME BONUSES null and void.
Creatures that are level 8 do in the neighborhood 2d8+10 damage.
(All caps, because copy and paste from the bestiary)
BULETTE, BRAIN COLLECTOR, ARBOREAL REGENT, MEGAPRIMATUS, HIVE MOTHER, BALISSE, AXIOMITE, CHIMERA, TRICERATOPS, YOUNG GREEN DRAGON, YOUNG COPPER DRAGON, DESERT DRAKE, STONE GIANT, FLESH GOLEM, KROOTH, LAMIA MATRIARCH, GIANT OCTOPUS, and GIANT ANACONDA all have enough damage to break a Forge Warden in one hit.
Only ERINYS and SPHINX really come in under that.
And that's level 8 creatures, things that are weaker than the shield.
Bringing up level 10 creatures...
PHISTOPHILUS has a 35% chance of dealing enough damage to destroy outright
BRONTOSAURUS, RAJA RAKSHASA have a 10% chance
TYRANNOSAURUS, YOUNG RED DRAGON, ADULT WHITE DRAGON, YOUNG SILVER DRAGON, ROPER have a 20% chance
MAMMOTH has a 16% chance
GUG, OFALTH have a 25% chance
And every other level 10 creature will break the shield.
None of these creatures can do less than 10 damage, even if they roll all-1s!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, it works vs. any attack between 7 and 29 damage without destroying the shield. That is below anything but 'extreme' average damage for a level 10 creature.They might not destroy it, but they sure as well will BREAK it, which renders all of its AMAZING SUPER AWESOME BONUSES null and void.
Creatures that are level 8 do in the neighborhood 2d8+10 damage.
(All caps, because copy and paste from the bestiary)
BULETTE, BRAIN COLLECTOR, ARBOREAL REGENT, MEGAPRIMATUS, HIVE MOTHER, BALISSE, AXIOMITE, CHIMERA, TRICERATOPS, YOUNG GREEN DRAGON, YOUNG COPPER DRAGON, DESERT DRAKE, STONE GIANT, FLESH GOLEM, KROOTH, LAMIA MATRIARCH, GIANT OCTOPUS, and GIANT ANACONDA all have enough damage to break a Forge Warden in one hit.Only ERINYS and SPHINX really come in under that.
And that's level 8 creatures, things that are weaker than the shield.
Bringing up level 10 creatures...
PHISTOPHILUS has a 35% chance of dealing enough damage to destroy outright
BRONTOSAURUS, RAJA RAKSHASA have a 10% chance
TYRANNOSAURUS, YOUNG RED DRAGON, ADULT WHITE DRAGON, YOUNG SILVER DRAGON, ROPER have a 20% chance
MAMMOTH has a 16% chance
GUG, OFALTH have a 25% chanceAnd every other level 10 creature will break the shield.
None of these creatures can do less than 10 damage, even if they roll all-1s!
Then don't block, and lose its bonuses?
That's the choice, the tradeoff. You can use the ability, once, and then you need to repair. That's not consumable. If the attack would destroy the shield... don't spend the reaction.
It deals damage without an action, and then turns off until repaired.
All of that together is fine for a level 10 item.
Megistone,
to sum up, the issue is that you don't find satisfying enough to trade a sturdy shield for a magic shield, but this doesn't mean it's a flaw in the system, but simply that you don't find the choice worth it.
I'm not Megistone, but that suggests a misunderstanding.
My issue is that I have to choose.
Not that the choice is unbalanced, or that I want MOAR.
Please acknowledge that the rules did not have to be written in this way; that it is possible to design rules that are both intuitive AND balanced.
Consider the tweak that shields can still be repaired even at 0 hp, or at least that their runes can be salvaged. This alone creates *instantly* a much better ruleset, where you can use a shield the way it's meant to be used (put in the path of incoming fire) WITHOUT worrying about losing thousands of gold.
If magic shields were just Runes, what you just said would be a potentially wonderful solution. For the cost of 10% of the rune cost, you could move the magic from your old shield over to your new one. The issue is that shield's magic isn't based on Runes, so that isn't quite as elegant of a solution.
However, it isn't a horrible starting point. What if shields like other objects designed to take damage... I would also describe armor as something like this. Such a shield only become Destroyed if the damage it takes bypasses 0 HP by its original Max HP. If a shield is knocked to below 0 HP but not past its original MAX HP, it is not completely destroyed. It would require expending materials equal to perhaps 10% of the original cost to repair it, requiring an appropriate tools, and can be paid via materials and/or time crafting with an appropriate crafting level.
I'd probably go so far as allowing something like a Arrow catching shield to require a days crafting time, but no cost, since it seems destined to get potentially destroyed by its potential intended use.
Me... I'd be fine with some kind of Rune to make shields stronger, but I will admit I would not want it to make them as strong as a sturdy shield. Shields need to get stronger as they level up, and perhaps the intent was for this to be via special materials, but that was not made clear, and seems to be counter their declared intent with weapons, where they didn't want all high level magic weapons to by defacto be made out of this special material or that special material because it made no sense not to. I seem to remember reading they wanted it to be a choice that did have impact. Want a cold-iron sword, you might not be able to afford that and it have the striking rune, are you sure you want that?
I don't think that absolutely any magic shield should be able to have a sturdy rune inscribed on it to make it as strong as an equal leveled shield. I'm fine with that being a choice. If you want the strongest rune for the best damage protection, it won't have other abilities. However, I feel like the magic shields should be advancing and staying a bit below the sturdy shields of the level, so even they can used relatively regularly as shields were at lower level. And sure, perhaps combining a magic shield, made out of adamantine, you might be able to be better than a lower level sturdy shield (but not the same level sturdy shield), but would also cost you quite a bit more doing it.
There is some mention of the Reflecting and SpellGuard shields, and you know what, with the specific nature of the magic on them, I'm ok with them being something like that that perhaps you shouldn't generally block with. Think of it has having a hard mirror on your arm. You know you can deflect things, but don't what to put it through too much because that isn't its normal purpose. However, there absolutely should be more than Sturdy shield that can remain a relevant blocking shield at higher levels. (ok, Invulnerable shield is also relevant for blocking, but rare)
So I can see people who are saying that Sturdy is a choice, you have to balance it against a magical effect. And in rare instances, that magical effect might make it generally ill-advised for use for blocks. What I'm feeling though is the rules should not make that the baseline of magic shields, that they aren't acceptable for a typical on-level block every once in a while where the wielder has to verify their shield won't break each time before they use it. At the present, it appears that that was what was done. Honestly, I feel that most sheilds should trail sturdy shields by a bit as far as hardness, and should typically have a BT of 3x the hardness. Your rare 'fragile'/reflective/spellguard type shield designed only for deflecting could stay with a BT of 2x hardness but would be an exception rather than a rule.
Then Sturdy gives you best of Harness with the highest multiplier taking you to 4x hardness for BT making it ideal for blocks. Other shields would typically trail, with a bit weaker hardness and lower multiplier for calculating BT.
If I'm fighting the boss monster, and it critical's me, I don't have an issue that my shield gets broken if I use it. If it destroys it that is a different story, but might be understandable , although I'd like to see it extremely rare. Honestly, even against the boss monster, they probably shouldn't be destroying the shield on the first hit. If their hitting an already damaged shield, that seems more believable story.
Ok, here is a question or another train of thought. What if you could spend a hero point during the resolution of an attack to convert a broken shield into a 1hp from broken shield, or from a destroyed shield to a 1hp shield? That was just a last minute though I had that might help some people avoid situations in play that they feel would sit wrong with them. Hero points seem like something that are intended to help keep the story going and fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of that together is fine for a level 10 item.
Just out of curiosity, do you think Arrow Catching Shield is fine as well? Because I can at least try to understand your point up until now, even if I think you're pushing it really far to defend the status quo, but if you can't even agree that Arrow Catching Shield is a problem, I'm not sure if it's worth it to continue this discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of that together is fine for a level 10 item.Just out of curiosity, do you think Arrow Catching Shield is fine as well? Because I can at least try to understand your point up until now, even if I think you're pushing it really far to defend the status quo, but if you can't even agree that Arrow Catching Shield is a problem, I'm not sure if it's worth it to continue this discussion.
That depends - is there any other way in the game at level 11 to, as a reaction, take a hit for a vulnerable ally 15 feet away from you when targeted by a ranged attack? Because that's an extremely powerful ability to have as an option.
That said...
...that shield is a lot more of an issue.
Its way more risky than the Forge Warden, especially since the presumed use case is 'my buddy can't afford to take this ranged attack', which makes a crit or similar way more likely... which does push it toward consumable territory.
I kindof wish it had a special rule that said something along the lines of 'this item can't be destroyed by a ranged attack, it can only be reduced to one hitpoint' or similar.
I don't have an issue with it breaking in one attack and then needing to be repaired. It being utterly destroyed when used in its niche is kindof a contradiction.
Its the type of item that is the sort of thing that I wouldn't consider buying till level +4 or so, and would pull out in a very specific fight situation. I might not sell it if I found one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely love that ANY character can get great use out of a shield in PF2.
The primary, universal function of a shield is to increase AC at the expense of an action.
And once again someone (in this case me) will remind you that the reason these threads exist has literally zero relation to that.
If shields are fine because they grant anyone and everyone +2 AC, then you'd be happy if magical shields were removed entirely.
Right?
I don't like the idea of removing a challenging character choice by buffing non-blocking shields into blocking relevance. Those other options are, by and large, totally valid on their own merits. If you give them more merits, they're an obvious best choice.
When and if it happens, I'll pour one out for Sturdy Shields because what makes them good and wonderful is that they're the go to for shield blocking. If they're only marginally more effective at that than a shield with utility, they're completely worthless. The dichotomy exists currently because they're the only Common option that reliably blocks lots of damage repeatedly.
Of course you take the slightly worse blocking shield if it comes with special utility but is still valid for blocking. Its a no brainer.
Currently, I have to decide how much I want +2 to spell saves, and if thats a good trade off for my Shield Block class feature. Thats good design.
So, did you pour one out for the "meaningful game choices" that didn't make it into the game? Right now, I can decide to have magic armor with its fundamental runes keeping my AC and saves at level-appropriate values AND STILL customize it with property runes such as Resistance. Right now, I can have my weapon accuracy and damage keep up with expected values AND ALSO slap on some property runes for this or that coolness feature.
Alack! Alas, that I'm denied the so-called "meaningful choice of having to choose...
Weapons and Armor are not considered 'Optional' by the game design. Your 'meaningful choices' in regards to them are what property runes you add - the fundamental runes are expected by the games math.
Shields are optional, for all characters. There's no 'need' for a shield to both be durable, and have special features.
Its not at all the same thing.
First of all, weapons and armor totally are optional. You don't have to use a weapon with fundamental runes; you can use a cantrip instead or get your Wizard buddy to cast Magic Weapon. You don't have to have armor with fundamental runes; you can build for max Dex and get your friendly Wizard to cast Magic Armor ALL of the time. Those could have been onerous burdens meaningful choices, too.
Second of all, even if that were true, that would just mean that players could get to face that manner of so-called meaningful choice with even greater regularity. Why should shield-using players be the only ones blessed with this decision?
Third, the game has a set progression of expected damage that goes up as the levels get higher. Anything that has any manner of capacity to interact with this steady progression of damage values (that is, every single shield in print that DOES NOT EXPLICITLY tell you "Do not/you may not use this to shield block") has the same obligation to keep up as the fundamental runes for armor and weapons do.
That's not at all the situation. The stats of the shields are apparent - you don't have to Shield Block blind. When you get hit, you know the result if you Block.Sooo... Forge Warden is a consumable?Uh, I don't see why it would be.
Its AOE fire resistance for your party.
You can block and use its blocking ability against any attack that causes less than 30 damage, which is a standard attack at its level.
As well, that's a lot of low rolled damage for several levels past that.
The main thing about it though is the shared fire resistance, from what I see.
Its a perfectly valid level 10 shield.
...Which is then immediately made irrelevant 2 or 3 levels later? Yay! Options!
...Which is then immediately made irrelevant 2 or 3 levels later? Yay! Options!Is falling into less and less usefulness as more levels are gained not the norm for most sorts of magical item?
Not really, there is typically a higher level version of whatever magical item you were using to upgrade to. And if there isn't, like in the case of say Hand of the Mage, it's because it fits a niche.
If you want to use a Forge Warden for the long term, or an Arrow Catching shield, because you like it's effects, you are just SOL once you reach a level where they no longer compete.
If you have a +1 Striking Longsword, and you out level it's usefulness you don't pick up a +2 greater striking Mace. You upgrade your Longsword.
This is not possible with shields. If I as a character want to use a Lion's Shield (which I like thematically) but I also want to shield block with it once in a while, that just isn't an option once I reach levels greater than what, 8th?
Well a level 4 minor sturdy shield (the weakest sturdy shield) has higher HP than a level 16 admantine shield (the strongest non magical adamantine shield). A minor sturdy shield has +16 HP, +8 BT, and -5 Hardness.
How does the price compare? A level 16 adamantine shield costs 8,800 gp, while a minor sturdy shield cost 100 gp.
So yeah a level 16 shield has about the same usefulness as a level 4 shield for 88 times the cost.
***************
PS. The strongest nonmagical Darkwood Wood shield (a level 17 8.8k gp shield) has half the HP and less hardness than the level 4 sturdy shield.
Everything is fine. Pitch perfect. Working as intended.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really, there is typically a higher level version of whatever magical item you were using to upgrade to.Your "not really" sounds like a "yes" to me.
The "higher level version" is a different item, so it is demonstrating the trend that an item's usefulness falls off as more levels are gained.
The problem, then, is not that the forge warden becomes less useful at higher levels, but that there isn't a greater forge warden currently present.
Yeah. That sounds like it about sums up my and several other's arguments.
The problem is that you really can't have a "cool" shield that stays relevant, if you intend to Shield Block. And brass tacks, Shield Block is great. It's DR on demand to many forms of damage. I can understand why Paizo wanted to make sure that there was some cost to be paid.
In my opinion that cost is too high with the shields we currently have. With no way of keeping your Lion's Shield or Forge Warden relevant, you can't build a character that uses those shields as a core aspect of their identity, and that sucks.
Your comparison of Shields to "other magic items" is also kind of apples to oranges. A shield is an identifying piece of gear. "Sword and Board" fighters, "Shield Maidens" etc... all sorts of characters are defined by their use of a shield.
The same cannot be said for many "support" magical items. So to have such a defining piece of equipment be relegated to what amounts to a Consumable is a pretty tough pill to swallow, especially when we have so many examples of Shield bearing heroes in fiction that are never without their trusty shield.
I will never make the argument that I think shields should Never break, it just shouldn't be as easy as it is currently. To me, the major differentiating factor between a shield with a cool ability and one that is "meant to shield block" should be the shield's hardness, with both options having enough HP to sink a good number of attacks regardless. The Dent system kind of did this to be honest, and people ruined that in the playtest.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A shield is an identifying piece of gear.I don't think that's any more inherently true than any other piece of gear.
Even the examples you list (sword & board, shield maiden, etc.) don't have any explicit expectations of what the shield is doing other than being present or exactly what shield even means (i.e. is it consider a throw-away bit of kit?, is it used for offense or just defense? are you not a "shield maiden" if you never actually plan on using your reaction on shield block?")
Name me an iconic hero or warrior that is named and themed based on their use of a ring. Or a helmet.
Spearmen use spears.
Swordsmen and Duelists use swords.
Archers use bows.
Boot wearers have boots?
Back Pack wielders have backpacks?
Iconic characters are defined by what they use, usually what is most visually striking. And there are plenty of examples of shield bearing warriors who were defined by their shields. Captain America is probably the most forward facing one in this day and age, but you have classical warriors like Achilles who bore his armor shield and sword, all said to be forged by Hephaestus.
Would Achilles be happy that his god-forged shield could be broken in 2-3 strikes by an enemy that is on his "level"? (assuming it's not an indestructible shield I suppose.)
In game it's just not possible to really lean into using a shield with any amount of variety. If you want to Shield Block, you are using a Sturdy Shield, which is a Steel Shield, so sorry Druid's, you need look no further.
You want to use a Tower Shield? Well, you have even fewer options for interesting up grades than those using Bucklers who at least have the floating shields and Reflecting shield as upgrade potentials.
It's possible that with the release of more content, we will see these gaps get closed. More specific magical shields could alleviate a lot of this burden, and allow you to maintain your characters "style". But as is, this just isn't possible.
As is, a Tower Shield's only use is taking cover behind it for the additional +2 ac, which is great. But you only have material options for upgrading it, and those tend to just not be viable, even at their own level. Which is hilarious since Tower Shields would probably be the most likely real world "Shield Block" shields, just based on their size.
Name me an iconic hero or warrior that is named and themed based on their use of a ring. Or a helmet.
Spearmen use spears.
Swordsmen and Duelists use swords.
Archers use bows.
Note how none of those include anything explicit about the details of those pieces of equipment.
Just like with shields.
Any spear being used in any way? Spearman. Any shield being used in any way by a maiden? Shield maiden.
There's nothing mandating that the spear not be subject to breakage or put down for a different variety of spear later on or be only used in melee rather than also sometimes thrown or vice-versa - just like there's nothing mandating that an "iconic shield user" use it in a specific way or with specific results.
And you definitely don't have to wield Gugnir or Gae Bulg to be a spearman... so why would a shield-bearing character have a different threshold for counting?
The point is that the Shield is a defining characteristic of those archetypes. And frankly, you just don't have enough options to really keep that characteristic relevant.
What if I wanted to make a character based around using a specific type of shield? Say a Lion's Shield (again, I just like the Lion's Shield. Sue me.). I can't and maintain any real relevance, since there is only 1 version of the Lion's Shield, and it never get's better. I can't upgrade it. I can't buy a new version of it. It will always be exactly as good as it is right now.
I could see such a character really leaning into the ability to have his shield attack when he raises it, perhaps forgoing any other weapon. Except I really can't do that, not if I want to make use of Shield Block, which is a great reaction: When you use the 1 shield that actually makes it viable.
Unless I played a character that was perpetually 6th level, never progressing and always only fighting enemies up to around 8th or so.
At this point, we all know very well how the shield mechanics work within the game. Some like it. Others don't. I'm in one camp, you are in the other, and it appears that neither can really move the others' opinion.
But you have to admit, if shields were perfectly fine as is, nobody would be making these threads, would they?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you have to admit, if shields were perfectly fine as is, nobody would be making these threads, would they?
People have been making "caster/martial disparity is a myth" and "Clerics are one of the weakest classes in game" threads throughout the 3.5/PF1 lifecycle and that doesn't really do anything about the validity of either topic.
A vocal and determined minority on a forum of self-selected highly invested fans can easily make a mountain out of a molehill.
Alright alright, let's not get in a tizzy over this.
As far as I can tell, I can see where those who are dissatisfied are coming from. Especially with magic shields that activate via Shield Block, having it break/destroyed in a single hit, especially when you dedicated several class feats into Shield Blocking, can feel pretty bad.
I don't believe, given how much re-writing they would have to do, that they would do a shield rune situation. But I'm certainly open to the idea. Even then, if all they did was increase the HP/BT on most shields and offered some alternatives to Sturdy for Druids, I think a lot of people would be a lot less frustrated with shields than they are currently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think before we discuss shields (in either thread) we should first establish a common understanding of the term "shield user" and what the shield is to accomplish for them.
From what I can see there are at least 3 distinctive levels of shield use.
1) Characters that just "happen" to carry a shield for AC. Those can use any shield from character level 1 to 20 as even a level 0 shield will provide +2 AC. That is total freedom of choice of shield used.
2) Characters whose class features incorporate the shield block general feat (e.g. druid or warpriest) or who selected the shield block general feat. Those characters might want to shield block on a regular basis as part of their defense routine (often because they can not utilize an alternative proper reaction), which would lock them down to sturdy shields OR be contend with just the AC bonus while using a shield that provides unique benefits apart from hardness and the related damage reduction.
3) Characters who are specialized in shields and apart from wanting to use shield block as part of their defensive routine need shield block to work on a regular basis in order to utilize their class feats. Those chars seem to be locked to sturdy shields only.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not even situational, there's no decision at all: you block if you are wielding a sturdy shield, you never block if you aren't.That's kind of like saying wands should just be 1 per day use, period - no option for second use at risk of destruction, and defintely no third use at cost of guaranteed destruction.
By which I mean it's your opinion, not a universal truth.
And the relevance of this is that it is clear that Paizo put items in the game which you can be cautious with and consider permanent, or get some extra benefit from them on the short-term by treating them as consumable. So the question of whether shields are intended to be that kind of item or not becomes relevant any time someone isn't getting as much use as they want out of the item without it being destroyed.
Heck, considering it is almost entirely the shield being destroyed when used as desired that is the basis for complaint against the shield rules, I think whether or not that's intentional might be the most important question - even though it's one that we probably won't see a clear answer on.
The comparison with wands is indeed relevant, like the one I made with the Staff of Power.
But when you take the risk of overcharging a wand, you get its full benefit; when you break your Staff, the mayhem is memorable. With those fragile shields, instead, the mileage you get is a few meager HPs. So, unless you are in a really desperate situation and the hit you are taking falls in that little range of HPs, you will never shield block.I mean, give me a shield that completely negates a hit when you block with it, at the cost of being destroyed: that's an interesting item, and if you price it fairly, then it definitely has its use. But one that only blocks 6 damage and costs one quarter of your total wealth... no.
Then we get into the territory of the Arrow-Cathing Shield. That's like a wand that has a chance to explode the first time you use it. If wands were like that, would you complain?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just the concept that is is the first RPG I've sever seen (and probably ever) where shields are not meant for blocking attacks is silly. This goes beyond game mechanics and more about the theme of Pathfinder: The most heroic high fantasy game with no grittyness, but shields break in one hit if you try to use them. I realize the shield mechanics were to make them more interesting, but it just doesn't mesh with the rest of the game. Everything should be breaking, then? Or maybe items should be used in the same way they are in any other game/movie/story.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was wandering what do changes do people think you would need to make to encourage players to destroy their Shields. I kind of like the idea of Shields breaking but at the moment its a hard sell for players to choose to loose there shield.
Bolded part: good --ing luck. Its never going to be "valuable" to destroy equipment, except in very rare circumstances (see: wands)
Last sentence: I don't mind shields having hit points and taking damage and having to be repaired and the potential for being destroyed. But I expect the shield to actually block a reasonable amount of damage, block a reasonable number of times, or both before it happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to ask, since I haven't delved into 2e yet; does any armor ever have to get repaired? Any weapons?
There are no generic rules for Sundering. Armor does not have hardness or HP listed, as with most items.
Just to ask, since I haven't delved into 2e yet; does any armor ever have to get repaired? Any weapons?
Only when specifically targeted by an ability. Just kicked the breastplate off the barbarian last night with a stone horse!
Otherwise, no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just the concept that is is the first RPG I've sever seen (and probably ever) where shields are not meant for blocking attacks is silly.
Quick - name one other edition of DnD or Pathfinder that let's you Block attacks with a shield as a core rule. Is that in 5E? I don't remember that in 5e.
I'm honestly not aware of any, and I've played DnD since 3.5 and earlier editions in CRPGs.
Every other edition has the whole "+X AC" deal you get by Raising Your Shield, which is zero risk and does not result in breaking your shield.
Presumably, in the abstract you are in fact blocking and deflecting attacks with your shield, hence the AC. But the Shield Block reaction provides EXTRA benefits, at EXTRA cost.
Shields have never been better than they are in PF2E. The whole subsystem is fine, at worst there are a few specific items that might warrant adjustment and design space for new shields (there are plenty of good ones in Age of Ashes, as a note).
|
Count me in with the group that thinks it was unwise to make Sturdy Shield a unique type of Magic Shield instead of an enchantment that can be placed on OTHER shields via a Rune System.
That said, if you're looking at this from the perspective that you should be able to block 3+ attacks per combat against a foe who is an Extreme Encounter on their own then I'm afraid you're trying to squeeze WAY to much value out of ANY given Shield.
The damage reduction component of Shield Block is the cherry on top for the Shield Rules but lots of folks here seem to be treating that function as the main event. At the end of the day when you make the decision to Block you ALSO get to know immediately if choosing to do so will break your Shield so if that hit won't kill you or put you in mortal danger but would break your Shield then I think the intent here is PROBABLY that you need to make a difficult choice, risk v reward and all that. It's supposed to be something that you can use once or twice a combat to help curb some damage that's incoming or to save your life when there is a massive hit incoming, not function as free Resistance against all Physical Attacks permanently.
If Sturdy Shield is bad for the game, it's bad because the number crunchers and min-maxers want to perfect their spreadsheets and Action Rotation for whiteroom simulations, not actual play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day when you make the decision to Block you ALSO get to know immediately if choosing to do so will break your Shield so if that hit won't kill you or put you in mortal danger but would break your Shield then I think the intent here is PROBABLY that you need to make a difficult choice, risk v reward and all that.
Having to make that decision harms immersion. Can you imagine a warrior in real life deciding to take a blow with his body rather than risking his shield?
(I guess we have to think in terms of 'using up your reserves of stamina / heroic luck when you try to dodge' to make any sense of it...)
At the end of the day when you make the decision to Block you ALSO get to know immediately if choosing to do so will break your Shield so if that hit won't kill you or put you in mortal danger but would break your Shield then I think the intent here is PROBABLY that you need to make a difficult choice, risk v reward and all that.Having to make that decision harms immersion. Can you imagine a warrior in real life deciding to take a blow with his body rather than risking his shield?
(I guess we have to think in terms of 'using up your reserves of stamina / heroic luck when you try to dodge' to make any sense of it...)
To be fair, would be a different question in real life if we had healing magics that could take you from dying to fine in a couple seconds, bizarre alchemical brews that on drinking would knit your wounds and revitalize you before the liquid even hit your stomach, and hell the ability to resurrect people even after they died...
I don't disagree that putting your body in position to defend your shield is currently a very weird and problematic element that has crept in via the shield rules. I just don't think the "real life" argument gets us very far on this one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just the concept that is is the first RPG I've sever seen (and probably ever) where shields are not meant for blocking attacks is silly.Quick - name one other edition of DnD or Pathfinder that let's you Block attacks with a shield as a core rule. Is that in 5E? I don't remember that in 5e.
I'm honestly not aware of any, and I've played DnD since 3.5 and earlier editions in CRPGs.
Every other edition has the whole "+X AC" deal you get by Raising Your Shield, which is zero risk and does not result in breaking your shield.
Presumably, in the abstract you are in fact blocking and deflecting attacks with your shield, hence the AC. But the Shield Block reaction provides EXTRA benefits, at EXTRA cost.
Shields have never been better than they are in PF2E. The whole subsystem is fine, at worst there are a few specific items that might warrant adjustment and design space for new shields (there are plenty of good ones in Age of Ashes, as a note).
Every edition assumes that you are warding blows off with your shield that's what the Armor bonus is for. It's the same way that plate Armor is also mean to be blocking blows rather than helping you dodge them.
This is the first edition of a d20 game that changed how shields worked in this particular way though.
Except it didn't. The old shield benefits - the bonus to AC, presumably from using your shield - exists in the form of the Raise a Shield.
The Shield Block reaction is an entirely new, additional function to endanger your shield in exchange for effective hitpoints.
Why wouldn't a shield focused character carry more than one shield?
EDIT: seriously, a character can switch out shields as easily as weapons. If you invest character feats in being good with a shield, carry more than one anyway. Yes, there are a couple problem shields that are designed to block and can’t, but it doesn’t mean the whole thing requires an overhaul. The idea that a character has their one trusty weapon and one trusty shield isn’t necessarily good for the game.
So I've been in the "Sturdy should hav been a rune" camp for a while now, but I do have one concern. Sturdy shields, as they are, are powerful. Other shields also have decently powerful effects. Would combining those things be too powerful? How powerful is a level 6 Spellguard Shield with an extra 40 hit points? Or a Spined Shield with an extra 40, on top of what is effectively it's 30 temp HP? Would making sturdy a rune overpower shields?
That said, if you're looking at this from the perspective that you should be able to block 3+ attacks per combat against a foe who is an Extreme Encounter on their own then I'm afraid you're trying to squeeze WAY to much value out of ANY given Shield.
Well...yes...
But I'm not talking about extreme encounters. I'm talking about Moderate, Low, and Trivial encounters. A level 16 shield is broken in 1 attack by a level 13 critter. That's a trivial encounter.If Sturdy Shield is bad for the game, it's bad because the number crunchers and min-maxers want to perfect their spreadsheets and Action Rotation for whiteroom simulations, not actual play.
...No one's actually arguing that Sturdy Shield is bad for the game.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Count me in with the group that thinks it was unwise to make Sturdy Shield a unique type of Magic Shield instead of an enchantment that can be placed on OTHER shields via a Rune System.
That said, if you're looking at this from the perspective that you should be able to block 3+ attacks per combat against a foe who is an Extreme Encounter on their own then I'm afraid you're trying to squeeze WAY to much value out of ANY given Shield.
The damage reduction component of Shield Block is the cherry on top for the Shield Rules but lots of folks here seem to be treating that function as the main event. At the end of the day when you make the decision to Block you ALSO get to know immediately if choosing to do so will break your Shield so if that hit won't kill you or put you in mortal danger but would break your Shield then I think the intent here is PROBABLY that you need to make a difficult choice, risk v reward and all that. It's supposed to be something that you can use once or twice a combat to help curb some damage that's incoming or to save your life when there is a massive hit incoming, not function as free Resistance against all Physical Attacks permanently.
If Sturdy Shield is bad for the game, it's bad because the number crunchers and min-maxers want to perfect their spreadsheets and Action Rotation for whiteroom simulations, not actual play.
Pretty much every Shield Feat and special ability works off the "Shield Block" reaction. It's not like some obscure bonus rule that only jank characters use, it's baked into Fighters, Cleric Champions as the main way the engine allows them to make defensive builds.
Shield system was designed so people would block with it, it's the only way to use all of the shield abilities or to distinguish shield specialists from random people with a shield.
If anything, the +AC is the throwaway part because you already get the best possible value from a lv1 metal shield and it cna never improve from there.