Staffan Johansson wrote:
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.
Aggressive block is on the enemy, so while it could have some use, it's definitely all about positioning. And position costs.
Apart from that, you have a choice among shields.
Really, there's no point in being at a store and complaining that you find yourself forcing take a shield made for tanking instead a shield which gives utilities against spells, or a dragon's breath.
To list some comps
+2 ac and +2 vs spells
+2 ac and free hands ( all maneuvers available, combat climbing, grab an edge )
+2 ac while dualwielding with a parry weapon ( agile weapon, eventually finesse weapon )
+2 ac and shield block chance
There are plenty of difference.
What you want is mixing utility stuff from shield with the possibility to being able to block some blows.
While all encounters tend to last 4 max 5 rounds.
Being able to block 2 blows with a non sturdy shield would be predenting to exploit an already balancing system imo.
Just bring back shield proficiency along the Shield Block feat and the issue is quickly settled. Only those trained in shields will have the decision in between special effects or damage resistance, all others GTFO of shields please.
Alternatively let all classes that come with Shield Block as a class feature opt out of it, chosing a different general feat instead, because I don't want to have a feat "priced" into my class starting kit that I will more often than not never be able to use. Toughness works every time all the time, and will have the same or better effect than a single block with any non-sturdy shield by level 6.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The current system is unsatisfying because it is so unintuitive - it does not let people use shields as they feel is natural.
Not because it is unbalanced.
Therefore I suggest the solution is best accomplished by reskinning rather than changing the mechanics.
Imagine non-sturdy shields are instead icons, relics or somesuch. You hold it in one hand and present it to the monster to ward off attack.
The mechanics remain identical. Yet, the imagery instantly changes. Should you block with a cross, or a small painting of the madonna, you will find it much more natural it will irreparably break, so you won't find it strange that you aren't blocking with it.
If you want to block with your item, you grab a shield, a sturdy one, instead.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
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 How the hell is running Shields on non-Fighter/Champions playing metagame? You know Druids and Warpriests get Shield Block as a baseline, right? And that Paizo purposefuly made so every class can have a shield if they want, compared to the Playtest where they required training?
Also, I really don't recommend using the term "playing metagame" in the videogame sense if you are in a TTRPG forum. The word has a completely different meaning in this context and people are gonna be even more confused about what you're trying to say.
dmerceless wrote: 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 How the hell is running Shields on non-Fighter/Champions playing metagame? You know Druids and Warpriests get Shield Block as a baseline, right? And that Paizo purposefuly made so every class can have a shield if they want, compared to the Playtest where they required training?
Also, I really don't recommend using the term "playing metagame" in the videogame sense if you are in a TTRPG forum. The word has a completely different meaning in this context and people are gonna be even more confused about what you're trying to say. Yaeh right, I should have said PowerPlaying.
My Bad.
however, the fact there is a possibility doesn't meat the choice is somehow right ( you can take the shield block free feat! good! )
Currently we could see any class using shields because of shieldblock, but, and here I talk fro myself, seeing classes like
- Wizards
- Rangers
- Rogues
- Bards
- Sorcerers
- Monks
- Alchemists
wearing a shield, is simply off ( they are going against the class by taking op mechanics. PP. )
Also other classes which use shields
- Barbarians
- Druids
- Clerics ( unless warpriest, maybe )
Are not the kind of class which have to absorb damage from a big hit by using their shield ( while it's ok having them to deflect, by increasing their AC ).
Or else, we will be seeing everybody with a sturdy shield with shieldblock reaction, because it is the probably the strongest thing they could use ( not to say that many casters doesn't even have a reaction they can use during all of their turns. Or not strong enough to compete like a shieldblock, which only takes a general feat ).
However everybody plays the game he likes, but as for me I try not to accept abominations ( like shield casters or full shieldblock party ).
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: Wearing a shield, is simply off ( they are going against the class by taking op mechanics. PP. Is the image a bit weird for a lot of these classes? In some situations, yes, but if someone wants to make a character that uses those, then what's the matter? I've used an Abjuration Wizard with a shield in previous games where shields weren't even that good; sometimes you just want to make something different and I think it's good that the game allows that. Plus, not having both hands free has turned out to be much more of a hassle in the games I've played than people take it for.
Also, Rangers and Monks? A Ranger is still a kind of warrior, and there are a bunch of eastern martial arts styles that use weapon + shield. Some even use just a shield and nothing else. Why the hell would using a shield on these characters be "going against the class"?
HumbleGamer wrote: Or else, we will be seeing everybody with a sturdy shield with shieldblock reaction, because it is the probably the strongest thing they could use ( not to say that many casters doesn't even have a reaction they can use during all of their turns. Or not strong enough to compete like a shieldblock, which only takes a general feat ). I don't really understand what's your point here, exactly. People can do that already, it just takes one General Feat and the gold for Sturdy Shield (which isn't even that significant for Spellcasters, who need less gold to be effective). I'm... really not seeing everybody getting Shield Block on Wizards. In fact, I think I've only ever seen one non-Fighter/Champion/Warpriest/Druid taking Shield Block, and it was a Temple Sword + Shield Monk.
The only difference the thing we're arguing for here would make, is that the people who do get Shield Block would have more options to choose from instead of the one boring shield that blocks things. They can get a Sturdy Shield whenever they want already, that wouldn't change anything in this regard.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Shields are amazing for casters without pets (two actions being the norm) for monks (flurry of blow action efficiency), for animal barbarians (free hands).
If your not going to bother with shield block then shields are just a useful action to do when you have a spare action and hand especially with a spell-ward shield.
My issue with shields is that the rewards for specialization particularly when it comes to class feats is pretty lackluster. Especially compared to competing forms dueling and duel wielding.
dmerceless wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Wearing a shield, is simply off ( they are going against the class by taking op mechanics. PP. Is the image a bit weird for a lot of these classes? In some situations, yes, but if someone wants to make a character that uses those, then what's the matter? I've used an Abjuration Wizard with a shield in previous games where shields weren't even that good; sometimes you just want to make something different and I think it's good that the game allows that. Plus, not having both hands free has turned out to be much more of a hassle in the games I've played than people take it for.
Also, Rangers and Monks? A Ranger is still a kind of warrior, and there are a bunch of eastern martial arts styles that use weapon + shield. Some even use just a shield and nothing else. Why the hell would using a shield on these characters be "going against the class"?
HumbleGamer wrote: Or else, we will be seeing everybody with a sturdy shield with shieldblock reaction, because it is the probably the strongest thing they could use ( not to say that many casters doesn't even have a reaction they can use during all of their turns. Or not strong enough to compete like a shieldblock, which only takes a general feat ). I don't really understand what's your point here, exactly. People can do that already, it just takes one General Feat and the gold for Sturdy Shield (which isn't even that significant for Spellcasters, who need less gold to be effective). I'm... really not seeing everybody getting Shield Block on Wizards. In fact, I think I've only ever seen one non-Fighter/Champion/Warpriest/Druid taking Shield Block, and it was a Temple Sword + Shield Monk.
The only difference the thing we're arguing for here would make, is that the people who do get Shield Block would have more options to choose from instead of the one boring shield that blocks things. They can get a Sturdy Shield whenever they want already, that wouldn't change anything in this regard. My point is simply that even given freedom of choice, some archetipes are abominations.
You want to allow and play with them or having them in your party?
Be my guest. I simply don't even considerate stuff like that. Perdiod.
If we leave RP apart it is logic to think that every reasonable person will use the stuff that will allow him the possibility to survive the best, for example in a dungeon scenario, and everybody will go with a shield, with the possibility to raise it ( since the last action is probably not useful in many situations ) and use the shield block reaction.
But in terms of roleplay you won't see a wizard or a ranger stay in front of a troll and Absorbing the damage with a shield.
A wizard won't use a shield, while a ranger, if using a shield, will use it to deflect the troll attack through the AC. That's what I think.
The problem here is people seem not to be able to understand that raising a shield means defend themselves with it. Absorbing a blow is something different.
For the last part, to make it clear, we have a specific scenario.
1) A combat which lasts from 4 to 5 rounds.
2) Involving from 3 to 5 characters and X enemies
3) A sturdy shield will probably allow a character to block from 2 to 3 times ( since enemies will die, and they won't necessarily hit, or even target, that character too much ), which means 3 rounds out of 5
If a sturdy shield allows you to block from 2 to 3 times before reaching the broken threesold, and a non sturdy ( which exclude obviously the regenerating shield and the indestructible one too ) to barely absorb 1, or to decide if to trade the +2 AC in exchange of lowering damage, what would be the number of hit a magic non sturdy shield should be able to absorb?
If you can even abosrbo 1/2 of the sturdy shields capacity, which is 1 blow and half, it would be the main choice for almost any character.
Quote: There won't be then any choice nor balance, since being able to absorb 1 hit while granting passive bonuses would be overall the best choice. That's, imo, what people seems not to understand ( reading the forums ).
Feel free to provide a fix which won't let all of this balance ( what i pointed out before ) disappear, because the only thing i can think of is a personal progression for the shield to make it broken after any average hit from a monster of the same level.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It honestly sounds absurd to me to complain about "going against class".
Pathfinder is a game that is based on the concept of diversity, experimentation, and sometimes just weird gimmicks. Where is the talk of Shields going against class comes from? Even in PF1 it wasn't hard for a Wizards (Arcane casters) to get a Shield all it took was a couple of feats, 1 spells, or a shield made for casters. Divine casters didnt even need to worry, their only concern was having enough free hands, which was solved with a feat.
Heck, one of the best classes for a Sword and Board character was a Ranger/Slayer because of their ability to skip pre-reqs. There were few ways to get Shield Master faster than being a Ranger.
So what is this talk about wanting options other than Sturdy Shield being "Power Playing"? Do you even know the meaning of that? Because "Power Playing" is when someone takes control of another player's character: That has nothing to do with wanting more blocking shield options. I am honestly stunned that type of retoric would show up at this point.
HumbleGamer wrote: Feel free to provide a fix which won't let all of this balance ( what i pointed out before ) disappear, because the only thing i can think of is a personal progression for the shield to make it broken after any average hit from a monster of the same level. I'm not sure the balance exists in the first place, since Wizards can go around blocking with Sturdy Shields already.
But let's assume shield blocking is too good if they don't break, and that we're making up new rules. How about:
Rule 1: Shields have double or triple HP or whatever.
Rule 2: To make a successful Shield Block, you have to make an attack roll with your shield equal or higher than the attack roll of the attack you're trying to block.
This means (a) shields do not break all the time, (b) someone can safely use a non-sturdy shield to block with, (c) shield blocking as a strategy is not overpowered as it uses an action and is not guaranteed to work.
Or:
Shields cannot be destroyed while blocking with them, only rendered unusable until after the battle.
Or:
A feat that causes all shields you use to take much less damage. This makes it too high an opportunity cost for a non-shield-focused character.
Temperans wrote: It honestly sounds absurd to me to complain about "going against class".
Pathfinder is a game that is based on the concept of diversity, experimentation, and sometimes just weird gimmicks. Where is the talk of Shields going against class comes from? Even in PF1 it wasn't hard for a Wizards (Arcane casters) to get a Shield all it took was a couple of feats, 1 spells, or a shield made for casters. Divine casters didnt even need to worry, their only concern was having enough free hands, which was solved with a feat.
Heck, one of the best classes for a Sword and Board character was a Ranger/Slayer because of their ability to skip pre-reqs. There were few ways to get Shield Master faster than being a Ranger.
So what is this talk about wanting options other than Sturdy Shield being "Power Playing"? Do you even know the meaning of that? Because "Power Playing" is when someone takes control of another player's character: That has nothing to do with wanting more blocking shield options. I am honestly stunned that type of retoric would show up at this point.
Everybody is free to play the way they want.
I didn't mean to offend or modify anybody point of view.
What I wanted to point out is that while one the one hand we have mechanics which give us a large amount of customization, it's true that on the other hands some archetypes could be abominations, or simply strange ( like shield casters or shield monk ).
If i find strange to see, let's take your example over here, a ranger directly taking a heavy blow and absorbing it with his shield, let it be. It's like you are fine with it.
You have a strange definition of power playing, which means make a use of the knowledge let's say out of context, to have an advantage, even if it doens't fit your character.
To make you some examples:
- Every character using a flickmace as 1h weapon, simply because it's the best 1h weapon.
- Every characterusing a shield even if it doesn't fit his class, simply because it provides the best benefits.
- Taking adopted ancestries, or even ancestry/heritage, for the bonuses instead of roleplay choices.
And so on.
HumbleGamer wrote: Temperans wrote: It honestly sounds absurd to me to complain about "going against class".
Pathfinder is a game that is based on the concept of diversity, experimentation, and sometimes just weird gimmicks. Where is the talk of Shields going against class comes from? Even in PF1 it wasn't hard for a Wizards (Arcane casters) to get a Shield all it took was a couple of feats, 1 spells, or a shield made for casters. Divine casters didnt even need to worry, their only concern was having enough free hands, which was solved with a feat.
Heck, one of the best classes for a Sword and Board character was a Ranger/Slayer because of their ability to skip pre-reqs. There were few ways to get Shield Master faster than being a Ranger.
So what is this talk about wanting options other than Sturdy Shield being "Power Playing"? Do you even know the meaning of that? Because "Power Playing" is when someone takes control of another player's character: That has nothing to do with wanting more blocking shield options. I am honestly stunned that type of retoric would show up at this point.
Everybody is free to play the way they want.
I didn't mean to offend or modify anybody point of view.
What I wanted to point out is that while one the one hand we have mechanics which give us a large amount of customization, it's true that on the other hands some archetypes could be abominations, or simply strange ( like shield casters or shield monk ).
If i find strange to see, let's take your example over here, a ranger directly taking a heavy blow and absorbing it with his shield, let it be. It's like you are fine with it.
You have a strange definition of power playing, which means make a use of the knowledge let's say out of context, to have an advantage, even if it doens't fit your character.
To make you some examples:
- Every character using a flickmace as 1h weapon, simply because it's the best 1h weapon.
- Every characterusing a shield even if it doesn't fit his class, simply because it provides the... I take it as a rule of thumb that in world people have noticed the incredible might of the flickmace and they are surprising common among adventurers.
Ranger taking hits is par of the course there nature fighters and can do slugging matches as well as the next man.
Shields are really helpful for not dying so people who who do not wish to die in melee combat but expect to be caught up in melee combat make use of them if they can, the same way a wizard might carry a staff or a dagger but not want to use them.
Power Playing
powerplay
You are mixing up the terms.
In any case wanting shields for blocking has nothing to do with the concept of metagame or powerplay. Those concept come about because of devs failing to provide a proper balance.
And you know what the current metagame is? Anyone who wants to block needs, not can or may needs to get a sturdy shield. That fact is, that only changes when Reforging Shields (a level 15 rare item not available in PFS) and Indestructible Shield (a level 18 rare item) become available is that people who use specialize in Shield Block have any option. They need to wait 11 levels to have the earlist option that is not a sturdy shield, and the game literally tells us dont even try to plan around it.
rare rarity wrote: A rare feat, spell, item or the like is available to players only if the GM decides to include it in the game, typically through discovery during play. So yes Sturdy Shields are the only choice. Anyone can get them at this point. Getting more shields that womt break on a single hit wont break the game more than Sturdy Shields being the only option does.
*****************
* P.S. Rangers used to be one of the best classes for Sword and Board. So I dont know why you are treating them as a group who doesn't know how to use a shield.
Matthew Downie wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Feel free to provide a fix which won't let all of this balance ( what i pointed out before ) disappear, because the only thing i can think of is a personal progression for the shield to make it broken after any average hit from a monster of the same level. I'm not sure the balance exists in the first place, since Wizards can go around blocking with Sturdy Shields already.
But let's assume shield blocking is too good if they don't break, and that we're making up new rules. How about:
Rule 1: Shields have double or triple HP or whatever.
Rule 2: To make a successful Shield Block, you have to make an attack roll with your shield equal or higher than the attack roll of the attack you're trying to block.
This means (a) shields do not break all the time, (b) someone can safely use a non-sturdy shield to block with, (c) shield blocking as a strategy is not overpowered as it uses an action and is not guaranteed to work.
Or:
Shields cannot be destroyed while blocking with them, only rendered unusable until after the battle.
Or:
A feat that causes all shields you use to take much less damage. This makes it too high an opportunity cost for a non-shield-focused character. I think we need first an Hypothetical to work with.
I'd say we can start by low levels and see how it proceeds the more we gain levels.
Something like:
a) Lvl 7 characters ( The level I guess those shields would be available. I used the Sturdy Minor because the lesse was lvl 7, and characters hardly find an item of their lvl. They are likely to find a slightly lower level item )
b) Sturdy Shield (Minor-L4) (hardness 8, HP 64, BT 32)
c) Spellguard Shield (L6) (Hardness 6, HP 24, BT 12)
Is this a reasonable scenario?
If, we have then to decide 5 monsters
- lvl 5 Basilisk ( 2d8+4 piercing ) Average DMG: 14
- lvl 6 Cave Bear ( 2d10+6 piercing ) Average DMG: 18
- lvl 7 Hill Giant ( 1d10+14 bludgeoning ) Average DMG: 20
- lvl 8 Chimera ( 2d6+9 piercing + 2d6 ) Average DMG: 25
- lvl 9 Efreti ( 2d6+11 slashing + 2d6 ) Average DMG: 27
to see the average damage.
More or less ( there are exceptions ) we can see a progression the more we proceed levelling.
With double HP, a spellguard shield could withstand an average lvl 9 hit without go under the BT. Imho this shouldn't happen ( but maybe the double HP shield could be available later in the game. Let's see, around lvl 9-10 ).
Something like
Spellguard Shield ( enhanced )(L10 Item): (Hardness 6, HP 48, BT 24)
Could do, I guess.
I'd personally avoid to complicate the game with extra roll, so instead of the Rule 2 i'd stick with the one ( or at least, to work around shields ).
Not sure, but probably would be better to create a specific topic to discuss scenario per scenario instead of using this one.
Temperans wrote: Power Playing
powerplay
You are mixing up the terms.
In any case wanting shields for blocking has nothing to do with the concept of metagame or powerplay. Those concept come about because of devs failing to provide a proper balance.
And you know what the current metagame is? Anyone who wants to block needs, not can or may needs to get a sturdy shield. That fact is, that only changes when Reforging Shields (a level 15 rare item not available in PFS) and Indestructible Shield (a level 18 rare item) become available is that people who use specialize in Shield Block have any option. They need to wait 11 levels to have the earlist option that is not a sturdy shield, and the game literally tells us dont even try to plan around it.
rare rarity wrote: A rare feat, spell, item or the like is available to players only if the GM decides to include it in the game, typically through discovery during play. So yes Sturdy Shields are the only choice. Anyone can get them at this point. Getting more shields that womt break on a single hit wont break the game more than Sturdy Shields being the only option does.
*****************
* P.S. Rangers used to be one of the best classes for Sword and Board. So I dont know why you are treating them as a group who doesn't know how to use a shield.
When you call somebody a powerplayer you referr to him as somebody who min max without thinking about the character in terms of roleplay. I never used the powerplaying the way you linked ( and you can tell a friend of yours "please don't powerplay and make a more realistic character".
Apart from that, the meta is not sturdy shield block.
You are an adventurer and want a shield who is made for taking blows, so you choose among all those shield the sturdy. End.
You are simply been given no customizations among sturdy shields, but you are among shields.
You want to complain that you don't have choice in terms of shields which gives bonus to spells? Because you know, spellguard shield is the only one.
And please realize that there is balance in forgo a +2 vs spells for being able to block and absorb some damage from attacks by trading a reaction. And it's pretty balanced!
PS: as for ranger I already told you that using a shield to increase armor counts as using a shield to mitigate damage.
AC with shield = 22
Enemy roll a 21 = you can dodge, or even deflect with the shield, because the extra 2 armor which saved you from being hit comes through the raise shield action. So you used your shield to prevent being hit. Even as a hunter.
What I was referring to is that a i find more reasonable to think of a fighter or a champion which stand the blow by absorbing part of the damage through shield block.
But in the end, both characters ( ranger and champion/fighter ) use shields to prevent damage.
siegfriedliner wrote: My issue with shields is that the rewards for specialization particularly when it comes to class feats is pretty lackluster. Especially compared to competing forms dueling and duel wielding. I seriously couldn't disagree more that specializing in Shields is unrewarding. Its a solid piece of the puzzle that is providing damage mitigation and control for your group - not everyone needs to be dealing damage, and incoming damage is such that someone needs to be considering it.
Shields don't win fights on their own, but a shield specialist is an enabler for the party to succeed.
If you want to play without a healer, some sort of defensive specialist becomes close to necessary.
But like a lot of things in PF2E, how 'rewarding' something is is relative to your parties composition and its ability to capitalize on it. One shield specialist is great, assuming that you're part of a machine that wins fights.
siegfriedliner wrote: I take it as a rule of thumb that in world people have noticed the incredible might of the flickmace and they are surprising common among adventurers.
Ranger taking hits is par of the course there nature fighters and can do slugging matches as well as the next man.
Shields are really helpful for not dying so people who who do not wish to die in melee combat but expect to be caught up in melee combat make use of them if they can, the same way a wizard might carry a staff or a dagger but not want to use them.
I do agree in terms of logic.
If you find a weapon which allows you to fight better, why shouldn't you use it?
The only issue comes in terms of roleplay imho.
It can happen to see a not gnome character to use a flickmace.
It would be unusual but hey, it's the adventurers!
They are the heroes so it's ok for a hero to be different.
The issue, in terms of roleplay, is when everybody uses a flickmace ( or a shield for shieldblock ). It also points out some flaws in terms of balance.
Reach is too powerful, and shouldn't exist on one hands imo.
But as you said, since it does exists, let's use it.
And everybody flickmace.
Giving every weapon the choice to expend X points to modify the weapon the way they like would have been probably better.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Just for reference, in PF1 it is quite common to get a mithral buckler once it becomes relatively cheap. It's a benefit without any cons, and that's for every class.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Megistone wrote: Just for reference, in PF1 it is quite common to get a mithral buckler once it becomes relatively cheap. It's a benefit without any cons, and that's for every class. Yeah, it's pretty high on my list of caster gear, in fact. I get it every time it's available, since what else am I doing with my free hand?
HumbleGamer wrote: What I wanted to point out is that while one the one hand we have mechanics which give us a large amount of customization, it's true that on the other hands some archetypes could be abominations, or simply strange ( like shield casters or shield monk ). Please don't go down that road. One person's abomination is another person's favorite character.
Leave this "Stick to your class fantasy" crap for WoW and 5e.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote: The current system is unsatisfying because it is so unintuitive - it does not let people use shields as they feel is natural.
Not because it is unbalanced.
Therefore I suggest the solution is best accomplished by reskinning rather than changing the mechanics.
Imagine non-sturdy shields are instead icons, relics or somesuch. You hold it in one hand and present it to the monster to ward off attack.
The mechanics remain identical. Yet, the imagery instantly changes. Should you block with a cross, or a small painting of the madonna, you will find it much more natural it will irreparably break, so you won't find it strange that you aren't blocking with it.
If you want to block with your item, you grab a shield, a sturdy one, instead.
I will say that this would seriously change things for me. Still things like Arrow Catching Shield and Forge Warden would need to be reduced in price or be made 1/day effects, and the "Raise Shield" action might need to be addressed, but overall a magical charm might make more sense.
In fact, a mystical charm shield was part of one of my ideas for implementing a "Magical Defense Proficiency" for casters to replace light armor proficiency etc during the playtest. It would be cool to have magical trinkets you can raise like a shield, but isn't sturdy enough to block with.
They'd just *REALLY* need to buckle down and print a bunch of more interesting blocking shields to compete with the Sturdy Shield.
WatersLethe wrote: Please don't go down that road. One person's abomination is another person's favorite character. Exactly. Like, my current character is 16 year-old Changeling girl who started the campaign as a Champion, got affected by her mother's influence and went kinda nuts in a moment when one of the other PCs died, becoming a Hag-Riven of sorts, did some really gruesome s@&*, lost her Champion powers, and decided to learn how to use this sort of primal power she has to protect people. She is now an "Animal" Instinct Barbarian who uses animated hair (reflavored Deer Antler) as her main weapon and a shield to protect her friends from her previous training as a Champion. Oh, and she's also super shy and calm most of the time and like a 5 foot tall skinny girl.
Am I completely butchering "class identity"? Probably. Is this character an abomination? Absolutely. But it's also my favorite character I've ever played with. Okay, it did require a bit of reflavoring, but her abilities are all 100% RAW and I love that I can do some crazy stuff like this, because the game is extremely modular, no features are mandatory and almost no features are unreachable to any character. The game doesn't try to enforce class identity, and that can create incredible moments for a lot of people.
WatersLethe wrote: I will say that this would seriously change things for me. How so? Note there is no actual changes in my proposal - just that any non-sturdy shield is described as a small wooden block depicting a deity, your grandmothers' urn, or maybe a little box containing a bone of a saint, or something.
Every rule would remain exactly as is. Therefore no changes to price or function is suggested.
(If you believe Item X is too expensive or too weak, that is an entirely different subject. This is about fixing the overwhelmingly most common complaint against non-sturdy shields: that they break if used)
All that's changed is the perception of these items. Since that is the main complaint, that is what I set out to fix. It feels much more natural that a relic or icon shatters if used to block. It feels much more natural that you want to take a hit "to the face" to save your grandmother's urn.
Other than this change in expectations everything works as usual. You CAN use the relic or icon to block. Compared to a real-life little wooden block, you would probably even think it is very sturdy. :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Zapp wrote: WatersLethe wrote: I will say that this would seriously change things for me. How so? Note there is no actual changes in my proposal - just that any non-sturdy shield is described as a small wooden block depicting a deity, your grandmothers' urn, or maybe a little box containing a bone of a saint, or something.
Every rule would remain exactly as is. Therefore no changes to price or function is suggested.
(If you believe Item X is too expensive or too weak, that is an entirely different subject. This is about fixing the overwhelmingly most common complaint against non-sturdy shields: that they break if used)
All that's changed is the perception of these items. Since that is the main complaint, that is what I set out to fix. It feels much more natural that a relic or icon shatters if used to block. It feels much more natural that you want to take a hit "to the face" to save your grandmother's urn.
Other than this change in expectations everything works as usual. You CAN use the relic or icon to block. Compared to a real-life little wooden block, you would probably even think it is very sturdy. :) Haha, I meant it would change my perspective and make me feel better about the fragile "shields".
Deadmanwalking wrote: 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. Maybe some shields, possibly even most shields, but the Spartans at least had some pretty insane shields. Sure they could break if hit hard enough or enough times, but it would take a lot of force. They also could make a pretty legit backup weapon if you lost your spear or short sword. In PF terms it could even be a pretty legit primary weapon, though in PF2e of course it would be the "boss" you're attacking with.
And on a side note, since Lion Shield was getting thrown around a lot a page or two ago, it's honestly something I think really needs either some errata or an upgraded form anyways. Its main trick is the Lion Head attack, which is pretty decent when you get it, but has a clause explicitly forbidding you using runes to enhance it so that 2d6 is going to fall off hard with time.
Shinigami02 wrote: Deadmanwalking wrote: 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. Maybe some shields, possibly even most shields, but the Spartans at least had some pretty insane shields. Sure they could break if hit hard enough or enough times, but it would take a lot of force. They also could make a pretty legit backup weapon if you lost your spear or short sword. In PF terms it could even be a pretty legit primary weapon, though in PF2e of course it would be the "boss" you're attacking with.
And on a side note, since Lion Shield was getting thrown around a lot a page or two ago, it's honestly something I think really needs either some errata or an upgraded form anyways. Its main trick is the Lion Head attack, which is pretty decent when you get it, but has a clause explicitly forbidding you using runes to enhance it so that 2d6 is going to fall off hard with time. There is something to be said for the era that the Spartan Shield hails from though. Not many warhammer's and picks kicking about to take away the shields edge so to speak, and what heavy weapons there were would be made of relatively inferior materials. It was made of wood with a thin outer layer of bronze, so wouldn't probably hold up to sustained heavy blows from a heavy hammer or what have you. They were also heavy as hell, coming in at around 30 pounds vs. a heater shield at 8-10. This could be a benefit for cushioning the impact of a blow for instance, but made for quite the burden on your shield arm I'd wager.
As to shields realistically breaking on the battlefield, it happened. To what degree is dependent more on the era and tactics of the time you are talking about than anything else. The Romans, as was mentioned up thread, used Pila specifically to foul shields and break up Phalanx formations while their own shield wall marched forward. Many later period weapons were designed to counter Plate, and so would be pretty effective against shields in turn. Still, I don't agree that PF2 represents realistic shields at all, and don't think it should really. I'd rather they be weighted the other direction, as more hardy than "real shields" though.
As to the Lion's Shield, it is unfortunate that it's attack doesn't scale. But I will point out that at least it is an attack that you wouldn't otherwise get on that same action. This does give the shield a niche, small though it may be. So as long as you raise your shield with your last action, it's more a "Hail Mary" 3rd attack than a strategy you could really build for. I would love to see higher level versions that allow you to activate it more than 1/day, and improve the damage from it never the less which may allow a character to focus more on using it as an offensive option.
beowulf99 wrote:
As to shields realistically breaking on the battlefield, it happened. To what degree is dependent more on the era and tactics of the time you are talking about than anything else. Not to mention, some regions specifically designed their shields to chip and break during combat. Because doing so meant there was a solid chance of enemy weapons getting stuck, even if only temporarily, in the shield. Which opened a tactical advantage. Specifically, your opponent being possibly disarmed, or at the least, off balance.
Further, I believe I read somewhere about Romans being expected to go through multiple shields during a battle. However I can't remember where, or during what time frame, so it may have been in later years when they shifted to less well-made arms due to money reasons.
(As a side note, it was also noted in some accounts, to the stability, and re-useability, of a )
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Just curious, still new to the system.
Isn't sturdy shield meant to be better at taking hits, while other shields are good enough for Raise and come with different effects?
I feel like the two need to be clearly differentiated. I saw someone mention that a shield needs to block a hit to be used like a shield. But Raise a Shield still allows us to use a shield as a shield. Just not directly block a dangerous attack, right?
I'm not too familiar with shields, but for my playstyle and aesthetic, I'd probably prefer a Jawbreaker Shield over a sturdy shield and use it for the Raise Shield for AC rather than damage reduction.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Corvo Spiritwind wrote: Just curious, still new to the system.
Isn't sturdy shield meant to be better at taking hits, while other shields are good enough for Raise and come with different effects?
I feel like the two need to be clearly differentiated. I saw someone mention that a shield needs to block a hit to be used like a shield. But Raise a Shield still allows us to use a shield as a shield. Just not directly block a dangerous attack, right?
I'm not too familiar with shields, but for my playstyle and aesthetic, I'd probably prefer a Jawbreaker Shield over a sturdy shield and use it for the Raise Shield for AC rather than damage reduction.
While you are right about how the state is now, there is a big problem in that design that ticks off many players
As someone with the shield block reaction you want to use that sooner or later as it is an effective way to migitate damage.
But as soon as the damage surpasses the hardness the shield gets heavily damaged. While the damage is certainly managable in low level areas of the game there is quite a good chance to destroy your shield in mid to high level. Except you have the Sturdy Shield.
That is also everything a sturds shield is, a big brick of lifepoints with no other interesting qualities whatsoever.
Other shields in the meantime offer things: free hand shield, force shield, spell reflecting shield, counterattack shield.
But as soon as you want to use your shield block most of these are not viable because you don't want to risk your 18k gp expensive reflecting shield that might as well be made out of paper.
At the same time sturdy and other magic makes shields out of different materials uninteresting
A high grade Mithral shield (lvl 16; 8800 gp) is just as strong as a force shield (lvl 9; 650 gp) both have hardness 8 and 32 hp
why would you buy a 8800 gp consumable? its slightly lighter, wow...
Shield materials are in most cases uninteresting, over expansive and you are just better off buying a magic shield.
Or if you intend to use it you are going to buy a sturdy shield either way.
People like you who use shields mostly for the ac are fine, but as soon as you want to use the shield for blocking it gets flushed downhill pretty fast
|
8 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Problem 1: Shields whose special effect occurs on a shield block, but who don't have enough HP to survive an average hit at level (let alone a few levels down the road)
Problem 2: Characters who go all in on being shield specialists get all kinds of feats that support shield blocking. They can only use super boring Sturdy shields, while everyone else picks up fancy and interesting shields that appear in loot to use as toys/consumables.
Problem 3: Shield block is a cool new feature to the game, but the majority of shields discourage its use. Not even openly, just after players realize how damage actually scales.
Problem 4: Some players are finding their GM doesn't reveal the damage before you decide to block or not, making it highly likely that they'll inadvertently destroy their shield if they block.
Problem 5: It's bizarre to have a shield block reaction ready, but your character decides not to do it because their shield is more valuable than their hit points. It feels unsatisfying and gamey.
Problem 6: Druids don't have a Sturdy Shield option.
Problems 3 and 5 are actually the same problem, I think: player view is not matching to designer view that trading a piece of equipment (temporarily or permanently) for extra survivability is a good deal.
That same mismatch motivates both the feeling of being discouraged from blocking with most shields, and the behavior of electing not to block because you'd rather lose HP than your shield.
This problem is also the trickiest to solve of the issues with shields because if the downsides are reduced enough or the upsides increased enough, shield-use would step ahead of other build options in general effectiveness. And the "break point" on that is if no thinks 'maybe I shouldn't block this hit' in a typical scenario.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
thenobledrake wrote:
This problem is also the trickiest to solve of the issues with shields because if the downsides are reduced enough or the upsides increased enough, shield-use would step ahead of other build options in general effectiveness. And the "break point" on that is if no thinks 'maybe I shouldn't block this hit' in a typical scenario.
I think the minimal fix that *should* solve this is that shields can't be permanently destroyed. If that involves having to use down time to repair, or needing services only available in town, so be it.
The massive amount of permanently lost wealth is the major issue, in my opinion.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
WatersLethe wrote: I think the minimal fix that *should* solve this is that shields can't be permanently destroyed. If that involves having to use down time to repair, or needing services only available in town, so be it.
The massive amount of permanently lost wealth is the major issue, in my opinion.
In many campaigns having to trek back to town and/or spend days would not be functionally different from the current rules - it would still be "my shield use is over unless I packed extras" in feeling.
In many other campaigns this change would function as if shields were entirely free to replace between encounters.
And in my opinion already crosses the threshold of making shield use no longer a choice with benefits and drawbacks comparable to other choices, but a "generally the best choice" option.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The second most minimal change is increasing the amount of HP and BT.
The third most minimal change is changing the HP, BT, and Hardness.
WatersLethe wrote: thenobledrake wrote:
This problem is also the trickiest to solve of the issues with shields because if the downsides are reduced enough or the upsides increased enough, shield-use would step ahead of other build options in general effectiveness. And the "break point" on that is if no thinks 'maybe I shouldn't block this hit' in a typical scenario.
I think the minimal fix that *should* solve this is that shields can't be permanently destroyed. If that involves having to use down time to repair, or needing services only available in town, so be it.
The massive amount of permanently lost wealth is the major issue, in my opinion. You could even borrow my idea that after you pass the "Broken Threshold", the shield's AC bonus when raised drops by -1 point until it is fixed, but it can still absorb more damage with shield blocks.
Seisho wrote: While you are right about how the state is now, there is a big problem in that design that ticks off many players
As someone with the shield block reaction you want to use that sooner or later as it is an effective way to migitate damage.
But as soon as the damage surpasses the hardness the shield gets heavily damaged. While the damage is certainly managable in low level areas of the game there is quite a good chance to destroy your shield in mid to high level.
Quote: Other shields in the meantime offer things: free hand shield, force shield, spell reflecting shield, counterattack shield.
But as soon as you want to use your shield block most of these are not viable because you don't want to risk your 18k gp expensive reflecting shield that might as well be made out of paper.
My non-intrusive suggestion is this:
Re-skin non-sturdy shields! No game mechanics change whatsoever.
Describe them as reliquaries, warding symbols, icons or other held protective symbols.
You still need to carry them and present them toward the enemy (that is, you still "raise" them to gain the +2 AC).
But since you're using your grandmother's urn, or a wooden cross, or whatever, if and when you block with them, the result (they're smashed and broken) doesn't come off as incongruous or surprising.
It doesn't solve all problems, but it's a change you can implement immediately with zero consequences to gameplay balance, simply because no game mechanic has actually changed. :-)
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thenobledrake wrote: Problems 3 and 5 are actually the same problem, I think: player view is not matching to designer view that trading a piece of equipment (temporarily or permanently) for extra survivability is a good deal. Nobody thinks the developers seriously considered losing a 10,000 gp shield just to avoid some damage as a viable and intended option.
WatersLethe wrote: Problem 3: Shield block is a cool new feature to the game, but the majority of shields discourage its use.
Problem 6: Druids don't have a Sturdy Shield option.
Problem 3: That's why I say, reskin non-sturdy shields as not shields at all.
Immediately ALL shields encourage its use. :-)
Yes, shields now are "boring" (can't have runes, can't have magic effects) but hey, you can use the cool new feature called blocking! To me that's a glass half full situation.
After all, the "minimal solutions" are really quite significant boosts to shields in general, something that changes game balance.
Clearly you weren't meant to use non-sturdy shields to block with, so the solution is simple - don't call it a shield.
Problem 6: I would not hesitate allowing sturdy wooden shields. To me, that's just a silly oversight (that the rules seem to imply all shields are made out of steel and steel only, unless specifically says otherwise). (And if the rules mandate that items out of wood must be fragile, voiding the purpose of a sturdy shield, I'd simply import darkwood or something to Golarion so you can have shields made out of superwood.)
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp, there's nothing wrong with your suggestion about making shields not shields necessarily, but I don't think people really feel like buying into it. For me, at least, it just feels like a bit of a let down, both of the cool shields and of the whole idea of holding some sort of magic ward. The issue is many players shopping for shields are probably looking to fill out a specific character concept and are let down by the shields not being good enough, and a ward wouldn't have the same aesthetic function. Likewise, I feel like many players looking to give their characters a cool ward wouldn't be satisfied with it just being a reskinned shield.
If it was the intention from the start, maybe, but it wasn't, and I don't think everyone will be satisfied with it now.
I think part of the disagreement with shields is how they compare to other items. Part of the design with PF2 allows you to use the same sword and armour throughout the campaign if you so choose, making it a core part of your character's identity and allowing for 'your father's sword' type stories. That's not unanimous across all items, for better or worse, with some falling off in usefulness over time as their item bonuses are surpassed by other items or when their DCs fall too low to be useful.
Shields are definitely one of the item types where that can apply, and it can be difficult to build a character's identity around, say, a Lion Shield when in a few levels it will be a burden to use. It'd be okay if it was not always as good as a shield designed exclusively for blocking, as long as it was the same level of usefulness relative to those shields.
My pitch is (as well as magic shields being always repairable) having a higher level versions of each specific shield type and a way to upgrade items, like being able to use them as part of the material cost for the higher level version.
The problem with reskinning them is that it doesn't solve any of the problems.
If a player just wanted the passive AC or magic ability then what the shield look like doesnt matter.
For players wanting a magical blocking shield (Forge warden & Arrow Catching), changing the look to something else will only make things more jarring, but will remain as a very expensive consumable.
Finally for players wanting a blocking shield with a different material, reskinning literally does nothing. They wanted to be able to block with a shield, not paying for an overpriced trinket.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: thenobledrake wrote: Problems 3 and 5 are actually the same problem, I think: player view is not matching to designer view that trading a piece of equipment (temporarily or permanently) for extra survivability is a good deal. Nobody thinks the developers seriously considered losing a 10,000 gp shield just to avoid some damage as a viable and intended option. There's a 40,000 gp item in the game that has a clear "use it more than once per day at the risk of destruction", so "nobody" really should consider changing their mind about this whole "there's no way the developers expect anyone to actually do this" thing.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah, but the problem is that most of the shields above a certain level you can't even block with once with any safety. They're essentially in the "use one of the core functions of shields and you lose it." Not until you can repair it--period.
I think there's still room for making the non-sturdy shields a little less brittle without making blocking or not a no-brainer. Other people may not want them broken (and I don't think that's necessarily illegitimate with a single routine use), but I just don't want them to expect to be destroyed so often.
Whoever thought up the progression of how sturdy shields are certainly didn't knew the damage progression in the game well
@Zapp: Reskinning the shield would imo actually make it worse, the you have totems as items you can throw out of the window without effect and one line of shields thats viable
The more I think about it the less I actually want a shield.
I made a champion as party tank who can up to now use a shield relatively effective but looking at what is coming...ugh...
I don't want to choose between interesting and viable, that is a really s#+*ty choice to make
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
thenobledrake wrote: Zapp wrote: thenobledrake wrote: Problems 3 and 5 are actually the same problem, I think: player view is not matching to designer view that trading a piece of equipment (temporarily or permanently) for extra survivability is a good deal. Nobody thinks the developers seriously considered losing a 10,000 gp shield just to avoid some damage as a viable and intended option. There's a 40,000 gp item in the game that has a clear "use it more than once per day at the risk of destruction", so "nobody" really should consider changing their mind about this whole "there's no way the developers expect anyone to actually do this" thing.
Correct, the developers intentionally made a feature that if you take your 40,000 gp item, and you use it twice for its feature that makes it worth 40,000 gp or in other words try to use it like you have two of that 40,000 gp item, you are gambling and may get another use out of it and break it, or get another use out of it and destroy it... about 50/50 chance.
They are definitely, not only willing to have that happen, but lets turn around and ask the following question and see if it really is an equivalent comparison.
You have a shield worth close to 1000gp, that you may have used its magical ability today, or may not have. But you have your shield raised, and take a hit.
You decide, I'll use my class feature and block with it. This is using a class feature you've had since first level, and it requires mundane equipment to use.... its needs about 2gp (there is actually cheaper options, but hey, I stuck with a steel shield for this example since it closest matches the magical one I'm using.
So if I choose to do this... this 2gp of equipment action, the first time today. It is the exact same balance as using the 40,000gp item a second time in a single same day, and easily should imagine it SHOULD be costing you your permanent magic item?
Another example:
If in alternate universes the prior versions of our favorite RPG game, the Dagger had not allowed them to be thrown. Now in this new version that comes out, they have a new trait. The trait is Thrown, and it allows them to be thrown, as a ranged weapon. (yay, everyone cheer) People would be exited about the new mechanic, and they would love to adopt character concepts that will use this mechanic.
Now we get down to the thrown trait. Apparently, it has some extra rules on it. Any time you throw a dagger, you roll a flat check and have to get the 'level' of the dagger or higher on the flat check. If you fail, the dagger is destroyed/lost/gone.
But what about my knife throwing concept. Well we have a choice... there is a special magic line of daggers called throwing daggers. They can't have runes, but you don't have to roll to see if you dagger gets destroyed from throwing it. There is a line of these daggers so you can get better ones that do better damage, but you will never get to use property runes or any other special abilities on these daggers.
So in this imaginary case, the designers just made daggers more powerful, so people should of course discount anyone who is upset that people who want to use thrown daggers are kept from using anything but one line of daggers (or they simply don't worry about it and simply have to replace their extremely expensive daggers they want to throw then, as a matter of cost of doing business).
Now lets go back to the situation at hand, blocking with a magical utility shield, is not trying to get two 9th level spell effects in a day out of a powerful magic item that is generally limited to one a day. It is using a mundane (2gp) ability that the developers provided as a core option for several classes across a spectrum of roles. I have trouble seeing someone who can equate saying that any reasonable who will say it is reasonable for the first to traditionally risk their whole investment permanents, will also say that the second should regularly be risking their whole investment as well. The second is using the shield for what it is, without magic.
Shields are interesting in second edition, putting forth a new mechanic to draw people in, and want to use it. The current pattern shown in the Core book does not do a good job of making it fun or viable when you get into the details of it because of how easy it would be for a shield to be lost permanently if you didn't metagame knowing the amount of damage and refusing to allow that to be blocked. (which there is at least one shield you don't know the damage before you have to make the choice to use it, and it has really week HP)
Ok, actually, here is a simple idea. Magic shields don't exist. Magic shield crests (I was going to say boss, but hose are weapons). These cover a potion of the shield and impart magic to it. If the shield it is has been crafted to breaks, it is not broken, but can be crafted into a new shield, and that shield will take on the magic properties. Now shields can break and be destroyed as people love, but the investment to the shield is protected in the long-term, while subject to temporary loss, to make it meaningful. Some special shields like the indestructible shield, this may not apply to, they are hard enough to destroy, if someone managed to destroy it, they have done so.
Loreguard wrote: Another example:
If in alternate universes the prior versions of our favorite RPG game, the Dagger had not allowed them to be thrown. Now in this new version that comes out, they have a new trait. The trait is Thrown, and it allows them to be thrown, as a ranged weapon. (yay, everyone cheer) People would be exited about the new mechanic, and they would love to adopt character concepts that will use this mechanic.
Now we get down to the thrown trait. Apparently, it has some extra rules on it. Any time you throw a dagger, you roll a flat check and have to get the 'level' of the dagger or higher on the flat check. If you fail, the dagger is destroyed/lost/gone.
But what about my knife throwing concept. Well we have a choice... there is a special magic line of daggers called throwing daggers. They can't have runes, but you don't have to roll to see if you dagger gets destroyed from throwing it. There is a line of these daggers so you can get better ones that do better damage, but you will never get to use property runes or any other special abilities on these daggers.
So in this imaginary case, the designers just made daggers more powerful, so people should of course discount anyone who is upset that people who want to use thrown daggers are kept from using anything but one line of daggers (or they simply don't worry about it and simply have to replace their extremely expensive daggers they want to throw then, as a matter of cost of doing business).
Interesting. So you can use a dagger outside of melee, but at a cost. A potentially dire cost that is.
Ah, but what if instead a line of 'throwing daggers', that whole 'dagger thrower' concept came with its own Archetype? Its own set off class features to eliminate the loss chance, but at the price of not having the ability to get the best runes? Or at all? And instead these class features also bridging the damage gap, but not to the full extend a set of runes would grant. Because, in this case, it is clearly a balance issue. You can't have those class features and runes. And your class features can't quite add up to the same powers as runes in melee either, since you get to be ranged on top of melee already.
But that's the thing, isn't it. Right now we don't have class features or archetypes that make shields sturdy. We have magic items that are sturdy shields. And if we had Archetypes that make shields durable, we could not have sturdy shields too. Quite the conundrum...
If we had class features that make shields sturdy, they would be a feat tax for everybody who want those extra ablative HP. And they would then be able to have interesting and shields. And classes without access to these feats won't. Hard gated.
Right now, everybody can get Shield Block as a feat, and everybody has access to Sturdy Shields. I have no complaints about that.
Only the shields that self-destruct on being used as intended need fixing. And GMs who don't tell players the damage before the shield block, because they are wrong by RAW and RAI.
Loreguard wrote: ...see if it really is an equivalent comparison. I wasn't trying to make a comparison. I was trying to introduce the idea that the designers may have a different thought of whether the cost is worth the benefit than some players of the game do.
And to that purpose highlighting that there are massively expensive items in the game that unquestionably are destroyed if used in a particular (voluntary) fashion absolutely does suggest the developers think the same thing - voluntarily destroying an item for a benefit - could apply to a less expensive item.
Loreguard wrote: ...permanent magic item I don't think refering to an item than can be destroyed by its normal usage as "permanent" makes much sense. I realize that is where Paizo decided to put them on the treasure tables, but I think that is more to prevent their from being 3 categories (permanent, consumable, and preservable to give a name to it) for the tables than it is because they wanted people to think of them in the same terms of permanence as items which aren't destroyed by anything other than special exceptions.
@ Lycar - You're right that we don't have class features to make shields Sturdy, but we do have the Shield Block feat and class feature.
What if anyone can shield block even without the feat/feature, but doing so passes the damage after Hardness on to BOTH the shield and user (basically, the RAW right now).
However, those with the feat/feature Shield Block means the character is trained specifically in using shield block, such that the damage after Hardness is DIVIDED evenly between the shield and the user, thus passing half the remaining damage on to each, extending the life of the shields and the users.
If this were the rule change, it helps explain why Druids have the feature, it preserves the life of the wooden shields a little longer, enough that maybe it is not a wasted class ability any longer (at early levels, at least, until you can get Sturdy runes to apply to your wooden shields....).
Thomas5251212 wrote: Yeah, but the problem is that most of the shields above a certain level you can't even block with once with any safety. They're essentially in the "use one of the core functions of shields and you lose it." Not until you can repair it--period. The Core Function of the Shield is the Raise Shield Action.
The Shield Block reaction is a limited function of using shields, limited to those characters with the feat to access it (whether its a bonus feat or not). It is optional, and using it is meant to be a risk based decision based on whether you're willing to accept the damage to your shield in exchange for straight damage reduction. Just because you have it doesn't mean it must be useful in all scenarios.
All shields are fully viable even if you never use Shield Block. If you don't feel that way, you're not understanding the math advantages that come with the +2 to your AC. Its huge for your survivability.
Yeah, there are some shields that seem like they were intended for blocking and statted poorly for it. But I still think that is extremely likely that you are not intended to use Shield Block with all shields - for some of them, Raise Shield is limit of the intended use, and Shield Block is a high cost last ditch "it will keep me alive and conscious" option.
Shield users are so good as it stands, making them better is a scary prospect to me. Its currently extremely difficult to threaten a shield wielding champion in a balanced encounter - your accuracy suffers to the point that critting is unlikely, and you're missing a lot of non primary attacks. Its hard to throw enough damage at them to make them feel in danger before the monsters are dead and the encounter is over. Which is probably on target for where they're supposed to be.
Currently, there's a trade off for getting reliable and reusable Shield Block damage reduction - IE, you don't get any of the cool features. Removing that tradeoff will reduce the difficult choices shield wielder have to make.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yes and we are saying that those shields that are meant to be used with shield blocking and stated wrong need to be fixed.
If the stats aren't going to be fixed then change the price so they reflect how those shield are actually consumables and not permanent items.
If you want to get a +2 bonus to AC would you ever buy a 8.8k gp shield when the same function is done with a 2 gp shield?
Think about that. Are adamantine shields really that much better at getting +2 to AC that they are priced 880 times more expensive then steel shields?
|
