Sturdy Shield good for the game?

[First World Bard]

Salamileg wrote:

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?

Probably. But what if it was a rune you could only apply to a non-magical shield? That would at least make precious material shields have some utility...

[Malk_Content]

Is the meta decision any different from any other meta choice? Oh I'm not going to try and dodge this attack because there might be another nastier one at some point (Nimble Dodge) or I'm not going to try and defend my ally for the same reason.

Aside from the healing magic stand point. Characters in Golarion are super stupid sturdy. If I can survive 20 stabs with a sword, your right I might think about taking the hit over damaging my gear.

[thenobledrake]

I would like to submit Hackmaster knowledge to folks, as that is the first game I saw which uses a mechanic by which sometimes your shield takes a hit and potentially gets destroyed while reducing the damage you take.

It was people saying Pathfinder 2 was the first that reminded me of this, and in doing so has brought a new thought to mind: that game's focus is on heavier simulation of things that happen during real battle - armor is damage reduction, you can tear a ligament throwing a weapon, gear gets damaged, people fall down in pain from wounds rather than only falling unconscious.

And I was thinking maybe it is that tonal difference that is responsible for so many folks not being impressed with shields having the option to let you survive 1 or maybe 2 extra hits and want that cranked up to 11 like some of the other elements in the game.

[Cyder]

KrispyXIV wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

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).

Game of Thrones (d20 system) had advanced rules for shields including blocking and even in that gritty deadly system shields survive several hits. There are other systems that use 'shield block' or have rules for shields block and damage. None of the ones I have played in have shields as fragile as PF2e.

[Cyder]

KrispyXIV wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

ChibiNyan wrote:

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.

This is your assumption about how shields prevented damage in previous editions. Its equal valid (and more likely) they worked like plate armour in that they blocked blows (the reason why shield material mattered to defence value). I am even pretty sure if memory serves me in one of the alternate earlier edition rules that dealt with armour as damage reduction rather than defence (could have been a AD&D 2e book, I am old so forget exactly which one) shields had a DR based on material or could be used for defence (you had to decide each round how you were using it).

I would say earlier editions ignored how shields work (much luck the current edition partially ignores how armour works). That said, if blocking with a shield in combat was likely to cause it to break with 1 hit they wouldn't have been as popular as they were. Sure shields were primarily used to deflect but there are plenty of circumstances where they also used to block and even wooden shields (more common than steel shields) would take several direct blows from an axe or similar before breaking. I don't know if you have even tried to chop a piece of hard wood that wasn't locked in place (i.e. has some give behind what it is resting on, think of it being on a firm mattress) and see how many hits it would take, its not easy though I admit I am hardly a fantasy ogre.

None of that matters though because we are talking about how PF2e rules treat shields. I am sure there is some design logic around balancing encounters around HP, in combat healing and to a lesser extent some damage reduction from shields. Right now some of the community thinks its balanced fine, others think that rules don't reward shield oriented characters enough.

I think there is enough evidence that the change from dents to HP for damage to shields has some issues. Arrow Catching shield is probably the strongest evidence of that. Magic shields that aren't upgradable is another strong issue that seems contrary to design of rune system for weapons and armour and leads to unrewarding play outcomes for many. Not sure that a shield specialised fighter/champ being able to block 1 or 2 extra attacks with a non sturdy shield really affects the balance that much when things like battle medicine exist.

Again I feel this is a result of designing a ruleset that is balanced on society play (i.e. we can't have cool things because it might lead to abuses in society play by munchkins). Good news is for the rest of us its easy enough to house rule and fix in a number of ways. I just give shields a dent system. Each blocked hit causes 1 dent (2 on a crit). Number of dents depends on material, study, and runes. Amount blocked is based on hardness. A player always knows how many times they can block before it needs to be repaired. If all dents are used up the shield can take 1 more hit before breaking. Its simple, reduces the math and its easy to swap up the number of dents on something if balance is out.

[siegfriedliner]

Themetricsystem wrote:

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.

The fighter has 5 shield block Feats the champions has 4 if shield block was not meant to be a core defining ability for the shield wielders but a peripheral then they really shouldn't have let you spend half your class Feats on it. Given the bulk of those feats give you more ways to trigger shield block anyone who is invested in them is going to expect to be able to use shield block more than once or twice a combat and that is the trap. You can invest a lot into Shields block early before you realise it doesn't scale well.

[Staffan Johansson]

The feats thing is a good point.

If just looking at a baseline fighter, it's a reasonably fair deal that you get to choose between either a cool ability for your shield or a shield that can take a hit. But it does seem odd that the more you focus on shield use, the more you are locked into the practical-but-boring Sturdy shield.

[Tectorman]

Unicore wrote:

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.

I totally agree with this. And in other games, that's my typical MO: you have your primary weapon, your other primary weapon, your back-up weapon, and several light weapons like daggers or hatchets capable of melee, range, and being carried into social situations that might not allow your claymore or warhammer. Not to mention your ranged weapons, plural.

But P2E has Bulk. I can't afford to go beyond ONE trusty weapon and ONE trusty shield. So I agree: not good for the game.

[Rysky]

Tectorman wrote:

Unicore wrote:

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.

I totally agree with this. And in other games, that's my typical MO: you have your primary weapon, your other primary weapon, your back-up weapon, and several light weapons like daggers or hatchets capable of melee, range, and being carried into social situations that might not allow your claymore or warhammer. Not to mention your ranged weapons, plural.

But P2E has Bulk. I can't afford to go beyond ONE trusty weapon and ONE trusty shield. So I agree: not good for the game.

I detest Bulk, but as a frontliner are you really prevented from carrying extra weapons and shields?

[Draco18s]

Unicore wrote:

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.

...And how many actions does that take?

(Hint: its not 1).

[Unicore]

Unless I am missing something tucked away somewhere: free action to drop. 1 action to draw a shield slung over your back.

[Temperans]

Umm, just think about that.

You see a person coming to you with 5 shields strapped behing their back. You ask them, "Why so many shields?" Their response is, "the darned things are destroyed in 2 hits. I need to have some spares."

Does that seem like something that would actually happen IRL?

Now imagine that character in combat. They block 1 or 2 hits and their shield is broken/destroyed. So they drop their shield to grab a new one. Then when that shield is destroyed, they grab another, etc. Does that makes sense?

It all just seems like you are playing a game where the devs coded shield wrong. Which heavy breaks the suspension of disbelief. Even magic is somehow more believable to me, than the way shields durability is handled.

[Draco18s]

Unicore wrote:

Unless I am missing something tucked away somewhere: free action to drop. 1 action to draw a shield slung over your back.

And 1 action to Grip it.

Besides, how many of them do you have there?
Are you sure the GM will let you have that many and still Interact with 1 action to retrieve one?

[beowulf99]

Draco18s wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Unless I am missing something tucked away somewhere: free action to drop. 1 action to draw a shield slung over your back.

And 1 action to Grip it.

Besides, how many of them do you have there?
Are you sure the GM will let you have that many and still Interact with 1 action to retrieve one?

Let's not forget that each of those actions is an Interact action. Since in theory you are replacing a shield that was just destroyed, are you really going to be willing to eat an AoO to replace a shield that the enemy who would get that AoO broke and would be dishing out?

Hot swapping shields just isn't viable, even if your GM allows you to strap them across your back in such a way that you could do so. Which is a stretch in and of itself, given that we don't have a hard and fast rule for a "stowed" shield that I can think of.

[thenobledrake]

Rysky wrote:

I detest Bulk, but as a frontliner are you really prevented from carrying extra weapons and shields?

Not really. Most of your non-combat gear can fit in your backpack and, thanks to the 2 bulk not counting rule that got errata'd in, doesn't even need to count towards your encumbrace or is like 1 or 2 bulk from extra tools and random light items (like a bevy of potions or something).

So your 5+Strength modifier bulk limit can be dedicated to your in-combat gear. It's easy to fit medium armor, multiple weapons, and multiple shields into that, plus still fill your belt pouches with potions or other Light items since you have to have a full 10 light items in order for them to register for encumbrance.

You will, if you want to use the heaviest of equipment and also still keep spares, step into your 10+Strength modifier range and take minor penalties - but that's by design; you either be mildly selective about what you carry (and how) or you face the penalties of encumbrance.

Draco18s wrote:

...And how many actions does that take?

I think some people treat the number of actions it takes to retrieve a stowed item as a "can't be done in combat" clause, when it definitely isn't.

It's not optimal, but it's also not unmangeable.

Temperans wrote:

Does that seem like something that would actually happen IRL?

Almost nothing that has happened during my gaming sessions seems like something that would actually happen IRL... but...

Also no, because most of the spare shields are strapped to the outside of the boat and/or war wagon, or even being hauled by a henchman or "squire" type, so the character intending on using the shields only has 1 or 2 or their person while traveling.

[thenobledrake]

beowulf99 wrote:

are you really going to be willing to eat an AoO to replace a shield that the enemy who would get that AoO broke and would be dishing out?

Creatures with reactions like attack of opportunity are the exception, not the rule.

Thus you generally aren't going to have to be making the choice you are describing.

[beowulf99]

thenobledrake wrote:

beowulf99 wrote:

are you really going to be willing to eat an AoO to replace a shield that the enemy who would get that AoO broke and would be dishing out?

Creatures with reactions like attack of opportunity are the exception, not the rule.

Thus you generally aren't going to have to be making the choice you are describing.

It is still something to be worried about. And AoO isn't the only reaction possible. A canny GM could ready an action for one example that is possible for any creature. And most monsters that have AoO are the same ones that would be capable of trashing a shield in a single or two hits, so it is reasonable to assume that would be an issue, at least in my opinion.

[Deadmanwalking]

Temperans wrote:

Umm, just think about that.

You see a person coming to you with 5 shields strapped behing their back. You ask them, "Why so many shields?" Their response is, "the darned things are destroyed in 2 hits. I need to have some spares."

Does that seem like something that would actually happen IRL?

May I direct you to the holmgang (a viking duel), in which each combatant was given three shields (held by others, and replaced when they broke), because shields break? Shields rarely outlasted a single major battle in real life.

Now, in real life, nobody actually carried more than one at a time in battle, because the encumbrance would be kind of absurd, but then nobody actually wore a backpack into battle either, or not if they could help it.

So this is unrealistic, yes, but not because shields didn't break in real life, just because carrying five 3 lb shields is just ridiculous, unwieldy, and silly. Of course, in PF2, that's solved by a bag of holding, though that does rather prohibit switching them mid-combat.

[Thomas5251212]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

I mean, yeah, the rules let you, but most people would say that its not worth it.

This is exactly the situation you are in with Power Attack with a smaller weapon. You can, but its not really worth it. The consequences are different, but its a completely comparable situation.

As well (directed at other commentators) The relative number of weapons that are valid by being high damage die two-handers by comparison to the total range of available weapons for Power Attack is very small - comparably so to the representation of Sturdy Shields to the total variety of shields.

This would be comparable if you could only get value out of Power Attack with those. You might get less value out of using others (such as the waraxe I use it with), but its still useful.

The problem is with Shield Block above the lowest levels to make that claim you have to accept that "blowing up a rather expensive shield if you actually use it to block" is comparable to "Won't get quite the same damage out of it." I'm going to state categorically that that's doing a big ole comparison of an apple to an orange.

[KrispyXIV]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Umm, just think about that.

You see a person coming to you with 5 shields strapped behing their back. You ask them, "Why so many shields?" Their response is, "the darned things are destroyed in 2 hits. I need to have some spares."

Does that seem like something that would actually happen IRL?

May I direct you to the holmgang (a viking duel), in which each combatant was given three shields (held by others, and replaced when they broke), because shields break? Shields rarely outlasted a single major battle in real life.

Now, in real life, nobody actually carried more than one at a time in battle, because the encumbrance would be kind of absurd, but then nobody actually wore a backpack into battle either, or not if they could help it.

So this is unrealistic, yes, but not because shields didn't break in real life, just because carrying five 3 lb shields is just ridiculous, unwieldy, and silly. Of course, in PF2, that's solved by a bag of holding, though that does rather prohibit switching them mid-combat.

You beat me to it. I was looking for the historical basis of that awesome scene from the 13th Warrior...

Real shields aren't indestructible. They weren't intended to be.

They were in fact, closer to being... consumable, expendable, and replaceable.

Edit: Hell, the design of the ancient roman pilum was intended to foul up and ruin shields...

[Thomas5251212]

Tectorman wrote:

Unicore wrote:

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.

I totally agree with this. And in other games, that's my typical MO: you have your primary weapon, your other primary weapon, your back-up weapon, and several light weapons like daggers or hatchets capable of melee, range, and being carried into social situations that might not allow your claymore or warhammer. Not to mention your ranged weapons, plural.

But P2E has Bulk. I can't afford to go beyond ONE trusty weapon and ONE trusty shield. So I agree: not good for the game.

While I'm generally on the side that the shields could use some work, I should note I pack a backup shield routinely. I'm not sure what someone would be wearing that would make that impractical. I manage to do that, carry a light weapon as a backup, and some javelins.

[thenobledrake]

beowulf99 wrote:

It is still something to be worried about.

Not to a degree of treating this possibility as if it makes using interact actions something to always avoid.

By all means, choose not to go for another shield while your actually facing an enemy with a reaction that the effort will trigger. But not declare shield swapping "non viable" across the board.

KrispyXIV wrote:

Edit: Hell, the design of the ancient roman pilum was intended to foul up and ruin shields...

Or at least get stuck well enough to make keeping the shield up even less appealing, forcing the choice of trying to dislodge or break off the pilum, or discard the shield itself.

Thomas5251212 wrote:

The problem is with Shield Block above the lowest levels to make that claim you have to accept that "blowing up a rather expensive shield if you actually use it to block" is comparable to "Won't get quite the same damage out of it." I'm going to state categorically that that's doing a big ole comparison of an apple to an orange.

Since how much damage you take in a combat is directly affected by both - the use of a shield, both raising and blocking, and how quickly you dispatch your foe - the comparison is at worst oranges to tangerines.

[Thomas5251212]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Umm, just think about that.

You see a person coming to you with 5 shields strapped behing their back. You ask them, "Why so many shields?" Their response is, "the darned things are destroyed in 2 hits. I need to have some spares."

Does that seem like something that would actually happen IRL?

May I direct you to the holmgang (a viking duel), in which each combatant was given three shields (held by others, and replaced when they broke), because shields break? Shields rarely outlasted a single major battle in real life.

Now, in real life, nobody actually carried more than one at a time in battle, because the encumbrance would be kind of absurd, but then nobody actually wore a backpack into battle either, or not if they could help it.

So this is unrealistic, yes, but not because shields didn't break in real life, just because carrying five 3 lb shields is just ridiculous, unwieldy, and silly. Of course, in PF2, that's solved by a bag of holding, though that does rather prohibit switching them mid-combat.

Though I will note almost all indications of sundered shields are in reference to wooden shields.

Of course, you wouldn't see many sundered shields with people without heroic levels of attributes, feats and magic weapons. But of course, that's not what even moderate levels of PF characters are fighting.

[Thomas5251212]

thenobledrake wrote:

Thomas5251212 wrote:

The problem is with Shield Block above the lowest levels to make that claim you have to accept that "blowing up a rather expensive shield if you actually use it to block" is comparable to "Won't get quite the same damage out of it." I'm going to state categorically that that's doing a big ole comparison of an apple to an orange.

Since how much damage you take in a combat is directly affected by both - the use of a shield, both raising and blocking, and how quickly you dispatch your foe - the comparison is at worst oranges to tangerines.

You're not entirely wrong, but the first part still doesn't change this; the time a larger weapon will really matter is far, far less often than the non-Durable-Shield-breaking case.

[Deadmanwalking]

Thomas5251212 wrote:

Though I will note almost all indications of sundered shields are in reference to wooden shields.

As I understand it, metal shields basically didn't exist in real life. Many shields had a metal facing, but entirely metal construction was pretty much reserved for bucklers (and hardly universal even there), simply due to weight issues.

So this is true, but perhaps less relevant than it seems.

Entirely metal shields are a fantasy element of Pathfinder in many ways, though perhaps one explained by the people of Golarion being physically stronger than those of Earth.

[Temperans]

Entirely metal shields are a fantasy trope because most people don't know most shields are/were made of wood and/or leather with metal as support/reinforcement. Aka shields were very often composites taking advantage of multiple materials.

Also yes, I know shields were not ment to last long. Wooden shields are known to trap weapons, which is useful, but can be detrimental (see roman pilum). But I do know they were not ment to break on the first blocked attack.

The point of the analogy was to show the weirdness of, "lets carry 5+ shields because they will break in one hit". To which people answered: "You dont carry your shields someone/thing else carries it for you". But then those shields are not usable in combat, unless its specifically a tournament/duel (like in a Holmgang).

My position overall is that when fighting a level X crearure, a level X Shields meant for blocking should break on ~2 regular hits or 1 critical hit of those creatures. Getting destroyed after 3+ regular hits and 2 critical hits. Also that special materials are way too expensive for their stats: Best shown by the fact level 16 adamantine shield is 88 times more ecpensive but still has worst HP than the level 4 sturdy shield.

****************

Note about the Holmgang. Participants decided on the rules and axes, which are specially effective against wooden shields, are known to be favored by the norse. So in the context of "its a duel", "the fight is not necessarily to the death", "Victory condition might be first blood" (direct hit), "Enemy might use an axe", and "enemy might get lucky and strike along the grain" having access to 3 shields makes a lot of sense.

[Matthew Downie]

If we're going the 'realism' route, things like arrows should not break shields.

Except maybe magic arrows breaking non-magic shields.

[siegfriedliner]

I was wondering if I was to homebrew a shield master dedication feat which gave a minimum shields hp and hardness scaling with each shield feat (through better handling) what would be fair?

[Lightning Raven]

siegfriedliner wrote:

I was wondering if I was to homebrew a shield master dedication feat which gave a minimum shields hp and hardness scaling with each shield feat (through better handling) what would be fair?

If you want to homebrew, just make all shields come a little bit closer to sturdy shields. Bump up the HP using the Sturdy shields as parameter. It's the easier route. Either that, or just price all shields (except Sturdy) as consumables of their levels.

[HumbleGamer]

siegfriedliner wrote:

I was wondering if I was to homebrew a shield master dedication feat which gave a minimum shields hp and hardness scaling with each shield feat (through better handling) what would be fair?

Remember that dedications are meant not to be better than classes.

And that the only class which has extra hp on a shield, renouncing his critical specialization or a companion, is the champion.

So, giving for free what is currently only for 1 champion specialization would be way extreme, mandatory for any class which intends to use shield, and in a single word, broken.

I suggest you instead to run some simulations in terms of fights at different levels. Roll20 could help you dealing with this.

The goal would be understand the differences between a sturdy and a non sturdy shield in terms of combat.

[ChibiNyan]

HumbleGamer wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

I was wondering if I was to homebrew a shield master dedication feat which gave a minimum shields hp and hardness scaling with each shield feat (through better handling) what would be fair?

Remember that dedications are meant not to be better than classes.

And that the only class which has extra hp on a shield, renouncing his critical specialization or a companion, is the champion.

So, giving for free what is currently only for 1 champion specialization would be way extreme, mandatory for any class which intends to use shield, and in a single word, broken.

I suggest you instead to run some simulations in terms of fights at different levels. Roll20 could help you dealing with this.

The goal would be understand the differences between a sturdy and a non sturdy shield in terms of combat.

Clerics can increase their shield durability too! I think this is a fine ability.

The time will come when, once the dust is settled, they'll start printing power crept options to balance/fix the game.

[Evilgm]

KrispyXIV wrote:

You beat me to it. I was looking for the historical basis of that awesome scene from the 13th Warrior...

Real shields aren't indestructible. They weren't intended to be.

They were in fact, closer to being... consumable, expendable, and replaceable.

Edit: Hell, the design of the ancient roman pilum was intended to foul up and ruin shields...

Real shields also weren't generally constructed in a setting with magic and higher level effects. How they functioned in the real world isn't entirely irrelevant, but it's definitely a minor factor in balancing the game once you get past level 3 or 4.

No one is saying a standard Wooden Shield shouldn't break when it's hit a few times by an axe. They're saying that that a magic Lion's Shield that is able to almost come alive to bite people probably shouldn't be almost as easy to break as a regular Steel Shield.

[WatersLethe]

I don't personally see why magic items should try to emulate regular shields used in ritual combat on Earth.

They should try to emulate shields from stories and mythology, which pretty universally fail to break after a few good thwacks.

Regular, non-magical shields seem to be pretty realistic. Magical shields don't uphold their fantasy, since one of the two things you would expect any magic shield to do is to not break as easily as a regular one.

If you want to play a character with throw away shields, keep a stack of 5 non-magical ones, but don't force everyone else to accept weak-sauce magic shields that fall apart at the drop of a hat because you secretly wish you were playing a gritty E4 campaign.

[Dilvias]

I’m trying to understand why sturdy runes shouldn’t be a thing. If you don’t want to shield block you don’t have to pay for it and if you are willing to spend the gold for both the base shield and the rune you will get the effects of both.

Can those who don’t agree with the sturdy rune house rule please explain the objections you have before I implement them in my game?

[HumbleGamer]

Dilvias wrote:

I’m trying to understand why sturdy runes shouldn’t be a thing. If you don’t want to shield block you don’t have to pay for it and if you are willing to spend the gold for both the base shield and the rune you will get the effects of both.

Can those who don’t agree with the sturdy rune house rule please explain the objections you have before I implement them in my game?

Nobody is against a sturdy rune homebrew rule.

Simply because it won't affect the gameplay of anybody but its creator.

Those who like the current balance ( whether it is the right interpretation or not, since no one from the staff said anything yet ), simply can really find balance in terms of sturdy shields vs utility shields.

Imho, mostly because the +2 AC is the 80% of the shield use, while many thinks that being able to use their reaction to reduce dmg by X would be the real deal.

[Unicore]

I think house ruling a sturdy rune can work out, just be aware that shields were not designed to work like weapons and armor and thus you will probably have to mess around for a while to strike the right balance of what levels are appropriate for giving out the different kinds of runes and how much HP bonus they should grant on top of shields of different materials, as well as figuring out how to create level sensible limits to how many runes you can put on a shield since there is no such thing as fundamental runes for shields.

Which is why that change is not likely to happen at an official level. Shields were not designed to have HP in the playtest and were a completely different item than weapons and armor until late enough in the playtest that trying to change them that much probably was too much work to get done in time.

[Gorignak227]

Dilvias wrote:

I’m trying to understand why sturdy runes shouldn’t be a thing. If you don’t want to shield block you don’t have to pay for it and if you are willing to spend the gold for both the base shield and the rune you will get the effects of both.

Can those who don’t agree with the sturdy rune house rule please explain the objections you have before I implement them in my game?

Ya, just for consistency it would be nice if shields had runes and operated like armor and weapons ☺️

(It would also be nice if they followed proficiency rules like armor as well since it feels weird to have monks and wizards run around raising shields)

[Angel Hunter D]

Honestly I don't see why most magic shields aren't accomplished through runes. Shields really feel like they are unfinished as published due to all the disconnects in purpose and function.

[ChibiNyan]

Unicore wrote:

I think house ruling a sturdy rune can work out, just be aware that shields were not designed to work like weapons and armor and thus you will probably have to mess around for a while to strike the right balance of what levels are appropriate for giving out the different kinds of runes and how much HP bonus they should grant on top of shields of different materials, as well as figuring out how to create level sensible limits to how many runes you can put on a shield since there is no such thing as fundamental runes for shields.

Which is why that change is not likely to happen at an official level. Shields were not designed to have HP in the playtest and were a completely different item than weapons and armor until late enough in the playtest that trying to change them that much probably was too much work to get done in time.

I think it would be amazing if shields could have Potency runes (hardness and HP) that let you stay competitive with sturdy shields, and also property runes that let you add cool abilities to the shield similar to what we have or even more generic things like "Hardness is doubled vs Fire damage".

Actually balancing this would be really easy, PF2 abounds with tables and examples of what any equipment of a given Item Level should be able to do and how much of it PCs should have.

[Temperans]

WatersLethe wrote:

I don't personally see why magic items should try to emulate regular shields used in ritual combat on Earth.

They should try to emulate shields from stories and mythology, which pretty universally fail to break after a few good thwacks.

Regular, non-magical shields seem to be pretty realistic. Magical shields don't uphold their fantasy, since one of the two things you would expect any magic shield to do is to not break as easily as a regular one.

If you want to play a character with throw away shields, keep a stack of 5 non-magical ones, but don't force everyone else to accept weak-sauce magic shields that fall apart at the drop of a hat because you secretly wish you were playing a gritty E4 campaign.

I agree that magic shields shouldn't emulate non-magical shields, with exception of maybe things like Adamantine and the other fantasy materials. Weak-sauce magic shields shouldn't be forced on people for a sake of a balance Paizo themselves created.

Which is why the non-magical shields being strictly inferior for what they should be and then magical shields following those values, makes me question the system every time I think about it. The more I think of it the more problems I find.

[Malk_Content]

We bring up real world shields not because we think the game should operate on real world mechanics, but because people keep saying things like "real world shields don't break that easily" when in actual fact they do. It isn't in support of realism, its showing that relying on realism for your argument in this case does the opposite. These shields are blocking blows that absolutely would devastate a real world shield (ooh let me hold up my shield against this trebuchet shot!)

[Evilgm]

Malk_Content wrote:

We bring up real world shields not because we think the game should operate on real world mechanics, but because people keep saying things like "real world shields don't break that easily" when in actual fact they do. It isn't in support of realism, its showing that relying on realism for your argument in this case does the opposite. These shields are blocking blows that absolutely would devastate a real world shield (ooh let me hold up my shield against this trebuchet shot!)

Yes, in the real world a shield can't block a trebuchet shot. But then the guy holding the shield wouldn't survive either. So how about making it okay for a magic shield to survive the blow that couldn't kill the wielder in the first place?

[Temperans]

The point of the real world example is 2 fold.

1) Shields do break IRL. Wether a lucky strike, sundering, or some other reason they would break.

2) Shields are not fragile, they won't just break from a single regular hit. They are made to be sturdy, reliable, and capable of taking some measure of punishment.

In short. Shields IRL are not indestructible, but they certainly arent made of cardboard. Shields below 3rd level work fine as the damage and shield stats line up. The problem is that by level 12 weapon dice caps at 36 (before other bonuses), but 90%+ of shields break after less than 20 damage: Even a level 16 adamantine shield (Hardness 11 HP 44 BT 22) breaks when struck by a level 12 weapon, even after rolling less than max damage and adding no damage bonuses.

*****************

For reference, a lv12 Fighter with 20 Str using a d12 weapon would deal max of 44 damage on a regular hit (before any other bonus) destroying a level 16 adamantine shield. His average damage is 27.5 which would break the shield in 1 hit.

[thenobledrake]

Dilvias wrote:

I’m trying to understand why sturdy runes shouldn’t be a thing.

Because we haven't had Paizo tell us how many hits they intended to be typically absorbed by a non-sturdy shield, we can't be sure whether the goal is being hit.

That's only relevant to the question you ask because it could be Paizo's intention that the extra absorption of hits given by a sturdy shield be the "effect" chosen - a trade made much in the same way as if a shield were a blank slate, could have no fundamental runes, but could have a single property rune; you choose your sturdy rune, or your lion's rune, but you can't do both.

Of course, we have people that would rather the situation be more like that sturdy is a fundamental shield rune and you can still have one property rune - but it's not clear whether that would be a "fix" or a "I just wanted this part of the game to be more potent than intended" change.

[Thomas5251212]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Thomas5251212 wrote:

Though I will note almost all indications of sundered shields are in reference to wooden shields.

As I understand it, metal shields basically didn't exist in real life. Many shields had a metal facing, but entirely metal construction was pretty much reserved for bucklers (and hardly universal even there), simply due to weight issues.

So this is true, but perhaps less relevant than it seems.

Entirely metal shields are a fantasy element of Pathfinder in many ways, though perhaps one explained by the people of Golarion being physically stronger than those of Earth.

Metal facings were what I was referring to; they still increased the resistance of a shield against breakage significantly.

[KrispyXIV]

My groups Champion just soloed a equal level creature (Level 18) using a Reforging Shield, one on one head to head. Had to lay on hands once, and ended the duel at full health. Blocked 3 attacks.

Shield didn't break till the next hit it took after that.

I think that the more Shields that are printed, the better this situation gets for all involved.

But maybe they felt they didn't need multiple 'blocking' shields in the core book, taking up space with similar function items?

[Draco18s]

Looking at the stats and a random level 18 critter, average damage to the shield after hardness is 20, with a BT of 60, so that seems about right. Champion would buff the hardness a little, but close enough to do some rough math.

Reforged is a level 15 item with stats similar to a level 13 sturdy.

So that sounds about right (sturdy shields are pretty sturdy and high level monsters don't scale up on damage THAT quickly compared to low and midlevel).

[Queaux]

I think the +2 AC is meant to represent the shield taking glancing hits. Shield block represents the shield taking the hit full on. That goes some way towards explaining the simulation issue being brought up.

[HumbleGamer]

KrispyXIV wrote:

My groups Champion just soloed a equal level creature (Level 18) using a Reforging Shield, one on one head to head. Had to lay on hands once, and ended the duel at full health. Blocked 3 attacks.

Shield didn't break till the next hit it took after that.

I think that the more Shields that are printed, the better this situation gets for all involved.

But maybe they felt they didn't need multiple 'blocking' shields in the core book, taking up space with similar function items?

Well, a champion is meant to be hit less and not to be crit unless a natural.

Let us assume that the champion, shield raised, against a monster of the same level.

Which means he will be

- hit on 9+ / crit on 19+ on the first attack
- hit on 14+ / crit on 20+ on the second attack

A fighter, given master armor proficiency, would have 2 less than the champion

- hit on 7+ / crit on 17+ on the first attack
- hit on 12+ / crit on 20+ on the second attack

Any other class which intends to abuse of the shield block mechanics, eventually apart from a cleric ( and not that I said shield block, not shield raise ), will have 1 less than the fighter

- hit on 6+ / crit on 16+ on the first attack
- hit on 11+ / crit on 20+ on the second attack

Obviously, if we assume that there are tons of magic items, and all of these character are able to have the max lvl armor potency runes available.

If not, let's reduce by another point

- hit on 5+ / crit on 15+ on the first attack
- hit on 10+ / crit on 19/20 on the second attack

It is simply normal that a champion could manage ( even without the shield specialization, since sturdy shields are already great for a tank ) to handle monster through shieldblock.

Note also that a reforging shield is nothing more but an enhanced "sturdy shield GREATER", since it has the same stats + an extra feature.

The number of hits a shield can absorb is imo already ok.
The fact we are forced to make a not so easy choice is part of this balance too.

Given that what really mattes is the +2 AC bonus, we have to decide between

- Resistant shield and wasting one of our reactions

- Utility shields with moderate effect and save our reaction ( unless blocking to avoid a bunch of damage could really make the difference )

The major issue I happened to see is that many people ( leaving apart playing metagame by running shields with any character which is not a champion or fighter ) doesn't really catch that

- The major advantage of a shield is the +2 AC

- The minor advantage is the rest ( and among the minor advantages, there's balance. Even if some of them are very very situational items ).

[Staffan Johansson]

HumbleGamer wrote:

The major issue I happened to see is that many people ( leaving apart playing metagame by running shields with any character which is not a champion or fighter ) doesn't really catch that

- The major advantage of a shield is the +2 AC

- The minor advantage is the rest ( and among the minor advantages, there's balance. Even if some of them are very very situational items ).

Then, why even have feats that are focused on making Shield Block better? Giving an extra reaction only used for Shield Block, letting you Shield Block energy damage, pushing people around when blocking, and so on?

Aggressive Block is a 2nd level feat. It looks really useful - I get to reduce the incoming damage AND push the enemy away so they need to move to make a second attack? Sweet! If I'm a fighter and I take that feat, I would expect to get as much fun out of it as a brute using Brutal Shove, a one-hander using Dueling Parry, or a scary dude using Intimidating Strike. But given that shields are made of cardboard and Shield Block is meant as a sometimes food, I can't. That's a pretty big disconnect.