Sturdy Shield good for the game?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 814 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

HumbleGamer wrote:


...
As for me, I hope they will modify them while maintaining some trade off, mostly because some suggestions I read on this forum are the last thing I'd like to see,as they'd remove any choice.

This is pretty much what everyone wants. Nobody wants to have shields that do as much as a Sturdy Shield and have cool abilities on top of that. Sturdy shields should be the best at that single thing, the issue most of us have is when you can't even block ONCE with other shields.

Special material shields should be priced with Sturdy Shields in mind, since they're pretty much running the same race. Which means that either Adamantine shields offer different stats (instead of just inferior ones) or they offer something altogether and leave Sturdy Shields as the sole shield-block options. For example, it would be cool if Adamantine Shields only took damage from Bludgeoning damage, Piercing and Slashing would still cause damage on the user, but the shield itself wouldn't take it (hardness stuff and whatnot), that would make the shield work really well against specific types of damage, but it would break easily against proper damage type. That would be a cool trade off, if we're not talking about changing stats. This is just from the top of my head, so I don't claim that this is balanced or something like that.

I think, as a player and occasional GM, I would like to keep Sturdy Shields as good as they are but other shields could gain a boost in HP to make them tank at least one max damage hit (not critical) from a level appropriated enemy and gain the broken condition. That makes them useful in a pinch without being a Sturdy Shield that you can count on against every hit thrown against you. Let's not forget that Shield Block for dabblers include a reaction and an action used, this is a relevant balancing cost for the benefits granted by shields, they're not passive stats anymore.


WatersLethe wrote:

This reinforces my opinion that shields as they stand are not intended. If certain class feats require access to a specific magic item, it should have been printed somewhere in the feat or shield section.

Otherwise it's an example of ivory tower game design, which is explicitly avoided in this edition of the game.

Especially since the shields turning to paper happened only after the switch from dents to HP, as though a mistake was made in the transition.

I mean, not necessarily. If some shields are meant for blocking and others are "block at your risk, but you get utility" then there is no actual need to print a bunch of options for category 1 in your core book.

Supplements have included true alternatives to the Sturdy Shield (the Reforging Shield is the easiest example) - there's no real need to clutter the core book with redundant options.


Lightning Raven wrote:

This is pretty much what everyone wants. Nobody wants to have shields that do as much as a Sturdy Shield and have cool abilities on top of that. Sturdy shields should be the best at that single thing, the issue most of us have is when you can't even block ONCE with other shields.

I do agree here.

Apart from some magic shields ( forge and arrow catch ) which in my opinion really need to be midway between sturdy and not sturdy shields ( probably closer to sturdy shields than non sturdy ), what matters is to find the best way to balance them out without making them "too convenient".

Possibilities could be many

1) New rule for shields and what concerns them being destroyes.

2) Enough HP/Hardness to deal with a single blow, and then not being able to use the raise shield action ( which means that a shield should go below the BT after 1 block )

3) Enough HP/Hardness to deal with a single blow, and after that ( crits apart ) being able to maintain the raise shield action ( which means that a shield should be able to remain above the BT after 1 block )

4) Enough HP/Hardness to deal with 2 blows ( or a critical one ), and after that being able to use the shield block reaction

and so on

I'd probably go with the nr 2 ( out of the four I listed, but as said possibilities could be way more ), simply because I don't like the idea that a shield gets destroyed ( I mean, actually I like it, but I also really understand that the choice is too tough ) after a shield block. Which means that a shield could have a generous amount of hardness, enough to give a proper damage reduction, but at the same time saving your shield from being destroyed ( but instead you won't be able to use the raise shield reaction until you repair it ).

Just this.

But I see that most of the users seem to like something close to the 3rd or even 4th option. I find them too good, mostly because of the fight duration ( being able to shield block half of the time ) while maintaining extra bonuses ( even if only for part of the fight ). Obviously a character which plans to use shield block 4x round would go with a sturdy one, but I'd like to give a choice even to non shield block spam characters ( And I really fail to see any reason to pick up a sturdy one on a barbarian or a ranger, if a non sturdy could allow me to deal with 2 blows while maintaining the raise shield option ).


If my options are "Best Shield for blocking" and "Shield with utility, But still adequate for Blocking", I will 100% of the time choose the shield with utility.

Utility is that powerful.

That is my concern with buffing shields other than Sturdies (that aren't the obvious duds) - the Spellguard shield argues for its use even without blocking, if it were by comparison even adequate for blocking I would never consider a Sturdy Shield again. The flat damage reduction from a Sturdy only competes with the bonus to saves because its a binary choice.

And I like difficult choices. They are what makes the game fun for me.


KrispyXIV wrote:

If my options are "Best Shield for blocking" and "Shield with utility, But still adequate for Blocking", I will 100% of the time choose the shield with utility.

Utility is that powerful.

That is my concern with buffing shields other than Sturdies (that aren't the obvious duds) - the Spellguard shield argues for its use even without blocking, if it were by comparison even adequate for blocking I would never consider a Sturdy Shield again. The flat damage reduction from a Sturdy only competes with the bonus to saves because its a binary choice.

And I like difficult choices. They are what makes the game fun for me.

I feel the same, but the majority of players seem not to like being "that" forced.

However, even if you feel that way, stuff like forge shield and arrow catch shield need to be addressed, because it's something totally different from a spellguard shield ( their feature rely on shield's HP and, eventually, hardness ).

Also, as far as I happened to see, it is given more importance to shield block than shield raise, which is imo definitely wrong ( because what saves you most of the times will be the shield raise action, or parry if you are a dual wield, and not the shield block ).


HumbleGamer wrote:
Also, as far as I happened to see, it is given more importance to shield block than shield raise, which is imo definitely wrong ( because what saves you most of the times will be the shield raise action, or parry if you are a dual wield, and not the shield block ).

Because with shield proficiency gone literally everybody can raise a shield for AC for "free" (using an action) however only those who have invested in a feat or the classes which starter package does include said feat can execute the later. Just imagine the difference in between a shield using ranger and a druid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Also, as far as I happened to see, it is given more importance to shield block than shield raise, which is imo definitely wrong ( because what saves you most of the times will be the shield raise action, or parry if you are a dual wield, and not the shield block ).
Because with shield proficiency gone literally everybody can raise a shield for AC for "free" (using an action) however only those who have invested in a feat or the classes which starter package does include said feat can execute the later. Just imagine the difference in between a shield using ranger and a druid.

Druids should be imo left apart, since they are in a bad ( or eventually strange ) spot.

I am not sure if the developers forgot about their "metal" issue or they simply wanted them to just raise their wooden shield.

It is strange they have the shield block reaction though.

However, what I meant to say is that 80% of the damage reduction you will receive will come from the raise shield action:

- Turning Crits into normal hits
- Turning normal hits into failures
- Drastically reducing the chance for enemies to land their second attack

Shield block is cool indeed, but I also think that it is misleading to only see "I managed to block 12 damage by using my reaction".

Liberty's Edge

To be clear on the topic of Druids and Shields: Anathema requires MORE than ONE act, as a minimum, that is forbidden before they risk losing access to their powers so arguing that a Druid couldn't use a Metal Shield isn't really genuine or true as long as the PC is careful not to take other such acts.

When it says "enough acts" that is plural, meaning no threat of power loss as determined by the GM can kick in until at a minimum the second "act" is performed and I personally, at least, don't think that repeated use of a Metal Shield or Armor should count as multiple different acts.

I don't think I know of a single GM I've played with that would balk at the idea that a Druid wants to use a decent defensive shield instead of a utility one. Sure, that means they'll have to be a bit more strict when it comes to their OTHER Anathema but that's a choice the player should be allowed to make just like how other Druids might burn down some forest in a fit or rage trying to chase out their enemies, they shouldn't be punished but instead reminded of their oaths and what they personally have to lose. It makes some great wiggle-room for more flexible character concepts and it seems that many if not most of you are missing the point in the permissive/forgiving wording for this feature.


HumbleGamer wrote:

However, what I meant to say is that 80% of the damage reduction you will receive will come from the raise shield action:

- Turning Crits into normal hits
- Turning normal hits into failures
- Drastically reducing the chance for enemies to land their second attack

Shield block is cool indeed, but I also think that it is misleading to only see "I managed to block 12 damage by using my reaction".

Fully agree that the +2 to AC probably is way more impactful than the DR granted by the shield. However if my class already grants such a feature I'd rather want to use it.


Sturdy shields being descriptively but technically, mechanically and unambiguously metal - and therefore anathema to Druids - feels like a "hillarious" oversight to me.

I'd definitely allow a Druid to use Sturdy Shields, but I'd go with the approach of saying you can (and often do) make Sturdy Shields out of wood instead of metal, under the rationale that the part of the description that describes them as steel was likely intended as flavor...


KrispyXIV wrote:

Sturdy shields being descriptively but technically, mechanically and unambiguously metal - and therefore anathema to Druids - feels like a "hillarious" oversight to me.

I'd definitely allow a Druid to use Sturdy Shields, but I'd go with the approach of saying you can (and often do) make Sturdy Shields out of wood instead of metal, under the rationale that the part of the description that describes them as steel was likely intended as flavor...

GM: There something magic among all the dragon stuff

Druid: Oh!

GM: It protects you from enemy attacks

Druid: Ooohh!!

GM: It's a Sturdy

Druid: OOOOOOHHHH!

GM: Metal shield

Druid: ohh......

Sovereign Court

Or just do what I did, make "Sturdy" a rune that can be added to any other shield, modifying it's stats, and that includes a wooden shield.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Thomas5251212 wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
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.

I agree that's one of its core functions. I simply don't agree its the only one, and with that being the case, the rest of your argument does not follow to me.

Shield Block isn't available to everyone, and isn't required for a shield to reduce incoming damage (by way of increased AC). It is by definition an improvment to the basic functionality of a shield, with limited availability and usage.

Its in no way "core" to the functionality of shields.

Its a listed function in the main entry for shields, virtually anyone can learn to do it as a level one feat, and all the classes primarily focused around shields get it for free.

So I stand by my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also do agree probably the best fix is to address the hits the other shields can take rather than their durability; that way the non-sturdy shields still aren't the shield of choice if you're going to be shield blocking (because they just aren't going to stop much if the durability doesn't change) but its still at least something that means that blocking wasn't an actively bad idea.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Zapp wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

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.

That's why I suggest reskinning non-sturdy shields as non-shields:

Then ALL shields can be raised AND used to block with.

There are also... lets call them wards, which you can raise to get that sweet +2 AC. You CAN block with them, but you aren't going to be surprised when they shatter in a thousand pieces...

For what its worth? I'd honestly like to see this implemented elsewhere, explicitly, in a unique set of items.

For example, imagine a "Holy Symbol of Protection", which could be used with the Raise Shield Action against Undead And Fiends, which provided its bonus against their supernatural abilities and which had a hardness that scaled with your Religion proficiency.

Its a concept that feels "wasted" as a patch for shield durability.

Thank you. This is the first time I have felt that you actually considered my suggestion and provided feedback, rather than dismissing it out of hand. I guess persistence pays off! :-)

Regards, Zapp


thenobledrake wrote:
Megistone wrote:
when you are facing an 80 damage critical, how many times are you going to block just 6 of that, at the cost of a big chunk of your wealth?

As many times as that gives me a shot at not getting dropped to 0 HP - because even if I have party members ready and willing to get me off the ground with healing, I'd rather not pick up the Wounded condition and have my turn in the initiative order knocked out of place.

It's a rare circumstance to be sure, but I don't mind having a feature I don't use unless my other efforts have gone poorly. And because I'm probably not using my wealth for anything else, the 'big chunk' status of the cost doesn't much matter to me either.

This explains why you are unable to see the point all of us are trying to make.

You will have to take our word for it when we say losing thousands of gold just to avoid Wounded is not worth it, even a little.

If you play official APs you will find that heroes go down regularly. I would say at least one PC loses all his hit points at least once every play session. (He isn't killed, since the Cleric brings him back again, just downed).

If you had shared this experience you too would have seen that paying thousands of gold this often is utterly unsustainable.

But at the very least, I thank you for clarifying how incompatible your view is to ours.

Zapp


Temperans wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Temperans wrote:
The problem with reskinning them is that it doesn't solve any of the problems.

You meant to say "The problem with reskinning them is that it doesn't solve any of my problems."

For all of those having the specific problem of "my shield broke as soon as used it? But it cost 12,000 gold??!?!" it solves the problem quite handily.

Cheers

Yes I will pay 12,000 gold for +2 to AC when I can get the same with a level 0 2 gold item.....sarcasm

Reskinning non-sturdy shields does not fix the problem of them being outrageously over priced for their effect.

And I am not even saying that shields should ever be as good as Sturdy Shields. But an Adamantine Shield should not be priced as a level 16 permanent item and have the stats of a level 4 one.

They are a literal waste of gold and time as they currently are.

And no blocking 6-7 damage at level 6 for 8,800 gold is not overpower, or broken, or merit the item being an overpriced consumable.

I'm not talking about overpriced or useless items.

I don't think you are even aware of how you're talking about an entirely different problem.

Hint: If the only problem was that non-sturdy shields were overpriced, the solution would be simple: don't buy or use them!


Zapp wrote:
If you play official APs you will find that heroes go down regularly.

No, if I play official APs I might find that experience - but I also might not.

It does not do your arguments any favors to accompany them with claims that your experiences are the only possible experiences.

Because at this point you are basically insisting that I must be a liar if my experience of official APs is different from your own, and that's not discussion - that's you plugging your ears and going "lalalalalala"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:


You will have to take our word for it when we say losing thousands of gold just to avoid Wounded is not worth it, even a little.

If you play official APs you will find that heroes go down regularly. I would say at least one PC loses all his hit points at least once every play session. (He isn't killed, since the Cleric brings him back again, just downed).
Zapp

In order -

Regular money spending - I'm still not sure where you're getting this 'regularly spending thousands of gold thing.' I've run for 33 levels of Age of Ashes, with two shield Champions, and there have been no destroyed shields at all, ever. And they're used (and blocked with) a variety of shields in addition to Sturdy Shields - don't block attacks that will destroy your shield. The circumstance where it is "Block with my 6 hardness, 24 hp shield or go down" is extraordinarily rare, and the circumstance where something rolls low on damage even at level 10+ and doesn't do enough damage to destroy a shield so I can block with it is actually really common.

Players going down - I have not found that. Heroes going unconscious is pretty rare in my experience - see above on Shield Champions though. Most of the times I have seen this have been in a party without a shield user at all, but also before the level where Sturdy Shields are a consideration.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to chime in about shield-focused builds...

Consider if when you roll a melee crit, you have a chance of breaking your weapon. And it's based on the amount of damage you actually do. You can choose *not* to apply the additional crit damage, in which case your weapon will not break. But you crit, you risk blowing up your weapon.

Now imagine there are "Striking" weapons, a separate class of weapons for which they have reinforcement and there's a significantly reduced chance of weapon breakage on critting. They also offer some hit bonuses similar to how striking runes are apportioned.

But they can't be enchanted, having no actual rune slots. No striking runes, no property runes.

Fighters, Barbarians, and other big hitters would get weapons that would not blow up when they opt to allow a crit to happen. And those would tend to be the weapons they would use if they were more crit based, what with built in hit enhancements.

The *cool* weapons with other properties would be reserved for classes less likely to crit or less likely to depend on doing so in any case.

Note that the main change here is not so much the reapportionment of bonuses but the fact of the destructiveness toward a key piece of expensive equipment when utilizing a class's key functions, and how that significantly alters, negatively, the amount of freedom in equipment selection that such characters have. But even with the additional "crits break weapons" change for this scenario, in order to be in line with the "shield blocks break shields" system, splitting the items into "survives player using base feature" and "gives players more options" only exacerbates the problem.

It sticks out to me as the kind of thing that should have been materialized as either a property rune or even a non-magical modification that reduces the number of property rune slots (i.e. to recognize that it should compete with properties, but isn't magical... maybe the additional hardening permanently alters the shield such that the property rune slot can't be recovered).


Shields are not weapons though, and Shield Block is not Strike.

But. If we were to run with that metaphor though, Raise Shield is Strike, is usable with all shields for shield focused builds, and provides the majority of your "Damage" (or in this case damage reduction) when you use it.

Shield Block is then like Attack of Opportunity - it doesn't always come up, isn't available to everyone, and is nice when it does, but it scales AGGRESSIVELY but only with the damage die and "Single Strike" damage of your weapon - ignoring all traits like Agile, Sweep, etc. Making it way less useful with the majority of weapons that aren't focused on having a big damage die, but are instead based on the utility of their traits and abilities.

Yeah, Shield Block is risky and involves weapon damage and AOO has no similar cost, causing this metaphor to falter. But the risk of shield damage is mostly narrative and illusory. It's easy to avoid, and easy to repair Your not supposed to be losing shields - you aren't required to block hits blind.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Your not supposed to be losing shields - you aren't required to block hits blind.

Tank with your face, not your shield. *proverb*


Ubertron_X wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Your not supposed to be losing shields - you aren't required to block hits blind.
Tank with your face, not your shield. *proverb*

This is only remotely the case if you discount the fact that the majority of damage reduction from shields comes from using Raise Shield, and is "invisible".

You still blocked all that damage with your shield. It just wasn't tied to the Shield Block game-construct.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Your not supposed to be losing shields - you aren't required to block hits blind.
Tank with your face, not your shield. *proverb*

This is only remotely the case if you discount the fact that the majority of damage reduction from shields comes from using Raise Shield, and is "invisible".

You still blocked all that damage with your shield. It just wasn't tied to the Shield Block game-construct.

Period.

And we Are lucky you can achieve it even with Parry weapons and some other feats.

So you could tank with different stuff.

I currently use my glaive, as a Paladin of shelyn, using the cantrip shield to get 1 extra ac, when needed.


HumbleGamer wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Your not supposed to be losing shields - you aren't required to block hits blind.
Tank with your face, not your shield. *proverb*

This is only remotely the case if you discount the fact that the majority of damage reduction from shields comes from using Raise Shield, and is "invisible".

You still blocked all that damage with your shield. It just wasn't tied to the Shield Block game-construct.

Period.

And we Are lucky you can achieve it even with Parry weapons and some other fears.

So you could tank with different stuff.

I currently use my glaive, as a Paladin of shelyn, using the cantrip shield to get 1 extra ac, when needed.

I'm beginning to think the true fix to this issue may be to switch the names of the two abilities.

Raise Shield becomes Shield Block - "You begin using your shield to actively defend yourself against incoming blows."

Shield Block becomes Raise Shield - "You raise your shield directly into the path of an incoming blow, splitting the direct force between both yourself and your shield."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HumbleGamer wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Your not supposed to be losing shields - you aren't required to block hits blind.
Tank with your face, not your shield. *proverb*

This is only remotely the case if you discount the fact that the majority of damage reduction from shields comes from using Raise Shield, and is "invisible".

You still blocked all that damage with your shield. It just wasn't tied to the Shield Block game-construct.

Period.

Well, this just is like, your opinion, man.

Deflection tanking is one thing, however one other and at least in my opinion valid point of view is that another part of "tanking" starts when you *are* hit, e.g. the GM rolled high or even a natural 20. And that is where shields *should* (also) shine and where they currently horribly fail. I could not care less that everybody can (ab)use shields for AC in PF2 now (actually I do care and whished shield proficiency would be a thing), however what I do care about is a feat and item combination that lets me down when I would need it most.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Your not supposed to be losing shields - you aren't required to block hits blind.
Tank with your face, not your shield. *proverb*

This is only remotely the case if you discount the fact that the majority of damage reduction from shields comes from using Raise Shield, and is "invisible".

You still blocked all that damage with your shield. It just wasn't tied to the Shield Block game-construct.

Period.
Well, this just is like, your opinion, man.

It is not my opinion that this hypothetical damage was prevented by the increase to my AC, and that this increase to AC was contingent on taking the Raise Shield action and wielding a shield, or that the primary use of a shield is to intercept, deflect, and block blows.

None of that is subjective or open to interpretation.

You are reaching your conclusions by ignoring this damage reduction, presumably because it undermines your position.

Shields actually do accomplish exactly what you state you want them to, by changing die results which would otherwise be hits or criticals into misses or hits.

They shine in exactly the way you want, but apparently under the wrong labels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ubertron_X wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Your not supposed to be losing shields - you aren't required to block hits blind.
Tank with your face, not your shield. *proverb*

This is only remotely the case if you discount the fact that the majority of damage reduction from shields comes from using Raise Shield, and is "invisible".

You still blocked all that damage with your shield. It just wasn't tied to the Shield Block game-construct.

Period.

Well, this just is like, your opinion, man.

Sorry, I should have said that.

My bad Uber.


KrispyXIV wrote:

It is not my opinion that this hypothetical damage was prevented by the increase to my AC, and that this increase to AC was contingent on taking the Raise Shield action and wielding a shield, or that the primary use of a shield is to intercept, deflect, and block blows.

None of that is subjective or open to interpretation.

You are reaching your conclusions by ignoring this damage reduction, presumably because it undermines your position.

Shields actually do accomplish exactly what you state you want them to, by changing die results which would otherwise be hits or criticals into misses or hits.

They shine in exactly the way you want, but apparently under the wrong labels.

I do not ignore or deny the general damage reduction shields provide, however and as so dilligently stated every single time this comes up anybody can use shield, so this very argument is 100% irrelevant for everybody who complains that shields are too weak to properly utilize the shield block feat.

If the nat 20 (or comparable high roll) comes up you *will* tank the crit with your face, (almost) no matter the AC bonus the shield provided in the first place.


Ubertron_X wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:

It is not my opinion that this hypothetical damage was prevented by the increase to my AC, and that this increase to AC was contingent on taking the Raise Shield action and wielding a shield, or that the primary use of a shield is to intercept, deflect, and block blows.

None of that is subjective or open to interpretation.

You are reaching your conclusions by ignoring this damage reduction, presumably because it undermines your position.

Shields actually do accomplish exactly what you state you want them to, by changing die results which would otherwise be hits or criticals into misses or hits.

They shine in exactly the way you want, but apparently under the wrong labels.

I do not ignore or deny the general damage reduction shields provide, however and as so dilligently stated every single time this comes up anybody can use shield, so this very argument is 100% irrelevant for everybody who complains that shields are too weak to properly utilize the shield block feat.

If the nat 20 (or comparable high roll) comes up you *will* tank the crit with your face, (almost) no matter the AC bonus the shield provided in the first place.

Theres something to be said for a Critical Hit representing a blow that bypasses all defenses to land in a critical location. You could look at this flaw as being thematically appropriate from that direction.


KrispyXIV wrote:
Theres something to be said for a Critical Hit representing a blow that bypasses all defenses to land in a critical location. You could look at this flaw as being thematically appropriate from that direction.

This may very well be true, however the same thing could also be said about the freedom of choice to block or not to block during combat. In a "real" fight you would rather tend to block (and I mean both AC and DR block here) any one hit that you can, and not strategically decide which hits to "allow" through.

Liberty's Edge

KrispyXIV wrote:
Theres something to be said for a Critical Hit representing a blow that bypasses all defenses to land in a critical location. You could look at this flaw as being thematically appropriate from that direction.

Indeed, I can grok this too. In some ways, it is a bit odd that a Critical Hit can be intercepted by a Shield Block in the first place given that the general intent of them is that the attack exceeds all defenses of the target to deal maximum damage. Interesting to think about.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I understand and accept KrispyXIV and HumbleGamer's viewpoints on the shield issue, but I very strongly disagree with them. I think it's down to a matter of taste.

I sincerely hope that Paizo either pumps out a ton more shields with cool flavor and better block capability, leaving many of the current shields in the dust, or makes some other change that results in the current roster of shields being far more useful for blocking.

I don't think blocking is too strong, especially given the current scaling of hardness.

I don't think people should be constantly weighing the value of a handful of hp versus a massive amount of gold. Nor do I think that is a valuable and engaging tradeoff decision to make.

I don't think it's acceptable to make the majority of shields fun toys for non-shield users, and limiting shield specialists to a small subset with few features.

I don't think the current state of affairs is intended, as one-hit-wonder shields would be far more elegantly handled by a different system, rather than the unnecessarily detailed and deceptive HP and BT for these low durability shields.

I don't see eye to eye on any of the arguments that blocking should be rare, special, prone to failure, or treated as a gift horse. I think blocking is cool and should be encouraged and expanded and a common part of any shield's use cases, even if some shield can't do it as well as others.

I do think the rules as they stand take you out of the roleplay more than I'd like, as people are weirdly concerned about destroying one piece of equipment while all the rest are invulnerable to harm.

I do think it's lame to tempt someone with a possible reaction they could make only to yank it away by informing them that if they did do it they'd be out a pile of gold.

Taking all of that into account, I believe Sturdy Shield is not good for the game since it's a ceiling on coolness and fun, not an interesting choice to be made.

Since this is just a difference of taste at this point, I think I'll refrain from contributing further.


Waterslethe, I'm interested in knowing if you're primarily a player or GM in this context?

My position on all this is mostly from the GM perspective, and getting to see two Shield Using Champions go into the system, through the same content, with separate Champion themes and generally different builds other than both used shields.

Throughout the campaign, they both obtained through chance, crafting, and purchase a variety of shields. There was certainly a point for both where they realised that Sturdy shields were the high point for blocking - but neither turned aside from using (and blocking with) the other options they found along the way.

Both leaned heavily on the Spined Shield they found, because it "fixed" itself and it was an attractive choice for a first line blocker that they could switch away from without pausing the party for fixes. Both carried multiple shields for durability purposes, and because different shields had different utility.

Once one of them obtained a Reforging Shield, it has been a favorite since due to its unique properties and almost-sturdy durability, but it is at its heart still a shield that only blocks.

That same champion also sought out a Dragonslayer shield, for mitigating elementnal damage their research indicated was coming down the road.

As the GM, I have noted a constant and extremely significant increase in durability for each Champion while they have shields raised - while they are using Blocking shields, they are extremely difficult to deal damage to consistently or rapidly enough to threaten downing them in the context of an encounter.

What I have not witnessed at all is a lack of variety in the shields they have used or sought out. Yes, they gravitated towards Sturdies or other durability based shields for blocking. But they also looked into other options for when those specialized shields were appropriate.

One of these parties is now level 20, and were wrapping up the AP tonight or next week. The other is kindof stalled at 13.

So when I'm arguing that I'm not seeing the issue argued here's being an actual real issue (outside of a couple obvious shields intended for blocking that do it very poorly) it's from a GM perspective where my players haven't reported any actual dissatisfaction with their shield based characters - and both players are now playing in the same Extinction Curse I am, where both have lamented not having a shield (until last session, but there are no actual plans to pick up shield block regardless - its not considered a critical part of their use of the shields, just a perk if they can fit it in down the road.
After more circus tricks).

My experience isn't your experience, but I'd hardly say its insubstantial.

I'm really interested in knowing how much of the dissatisfaction on this issue is based on a similar amount of actual play.


WatersLethe wrote:


I sincerely hope that Paizo either pumps out a ton more shields with cool flavor and better block capability, leaving many of the current shields in the dust, or makes some other change that results in the current roster of shields being far more useful for blocking.

I also hope that we will see more utility shields, since the pool is now not that large, but for what concerns Hardness and HP I am not sure what to expect from paizo.

Well to be really honest, I have this feeling that they will simply tell us to sum the magic shield stats + the special materials in order to get the new total value of hardness and hp ( And this won't leave any choice at all ).

I also expect them to address stuff like Forge and Arrow Catch Shields, which are in the worst spot possible ( mostly the former ).

WatersLethe wrote:


I don't think blocking is too strong, especially given the current scaling of hardness.

Hardness scales quite good in my opinion ( it goes well with the progression of toughness ).

The real isssue is, in my opinion, that during your game you won't be able to change shield with the needed frequency.

WatersLethe wrote:

I don't think people should be constantly weighing the value of a handful of hp versus a massive amount of gold. Nor do I think that is a valuable and engaging tradeoff decision to make.

That's ok.

I feel the opposite, but that's because I like the tradeoff part ( I like feeling to have something to sacrifice, and the fact it would be a tough choice ).

I am also aware that a champion/fighter meant to be a frontliner could require ( I say could because you won't necessarily choose to rely on the shield block reaction ) more golds than any other character.

-Priority to AC runes ( eventually Saving Throws runes ).
-Shield cost

WatersLethe wrote:


I don't think it's acceptable to make the majority of shields fun toys for non-shield users, and limiting shield specialists to a small subset with few features.

Specialists is not the right term here.

You could make an excellent use of shields even without using a single shieldblock.

So, since the term itself could be misleading, I'd stick with "shield block users" instead.

little ot:

A lvl 10 champion with a spellguard shield could intercept a blow aimed to a friendly target by using shield of reckoning, without breaking the shield.

Lvl 10 champion against a lvl 15 gold dragon

gold dragon jaws hit

3d12+15 + 3d6 fire dmg
21+15= 36 +12 fire damage average damage

Champion reaction will give 12 DR, so the target will take
24 physical damage and 0 fire damage

24 dmg -8 ( shield hardness ) = 16 dmg.

36 hp -16dmg = 20 = shield not broken yet.

Just to point out what a real shield user ( no offense fighters ) can do even with 10 lvl difference.

little ot end.

WatersLethe wrote:


I don't think the current state of affairs is intended, as one-hit-wonder shields would be far more elegantly handled by a different system, rather than the unnecessarily detailed and deceptive HP and BT for these low durability shields.

I feel the same ( read the part at the beginning ).

WatersLethe wrote:


I don't see eye to eye on any of the arguments that blocking should be rare, special, prone to failure, or treated as a gift horse. I think blocking is cool and should be encouraged and expanded and a common part of any shield's use cases, even if some shield can't do it as well as others.

Blocking is a mechanic.

Some shields are currently meant to block, others to give extra features.

Those extra features are meant to be pair to:

- Shield block damage reduction.
- Use of a reaction.

The point would be, imo, finding yourself wondering

"Do I really want to forgo a reaction and some features ( +2 vs spells, +2 reflex saves, +2 vs dragon aura, 1 min physical DR, etc... depends the shield ) in order to reduce a small amount of damage?"

And the answers should not be easy.
If the answer is not easy ( like choosing a feat ), paizo definitely hit the right spot.

WatersLethe wrote:


I do think the rules as they stand take you out of the roleplay more than I'd like, as people are weirdly concerned about destroying one piece of equipment while all the rest are invulnerable to harm.

To me it's just balance around a boardgame ( and with 2e we are finally close to a real one, given 3 action + reaction system ).

We are also lucky we can decide whether to use or not a shield after have seen the incoming damage.

WatersLethe wrote:


I do think it's lame to tempt someone with a possible reaction they could make only to yank it away by informing them that if they did do it they'd be out a pile of gold.

See the answer before.

You are in a fight and an enemy strikes you.

Normally you'd decide to block without knowing the damage, but in 2e you can decide to do it after have seen the total incoming damage.

It's not tempting somebody, because it would simply be math.

WatersLethe wrote:


Taking all of that into account, I believe Sturdy Shield is not good for the game since it's a ceiling on coolness and fun, not an interesting choice to be made.

Well, currently no shield ( probably apart from sturdy ones ) is really worth for its features.

.+2 vs spells which target you could be used not so many times.
.+2 vs frightful dragon aura is the same ( but +2 reflex vs aoe is nice ).
.1 use per day ( Lion shield, force shield and dancing shield ) is not that much, if you consider how treat wounds works ( you could go on till it's night time, so eventually you could find yourself using it 1 out of 20 fights ).

If you compare it to the utility shields, you'll see that the balance is for real.

Remember also that a shield will be a spiked or boss shield one, so you will be able to enchant it with runes if you want.

"A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes."

So its customization comes from choosing between the existing shields ( at the moment ).

Finally, at some point you will be able to choose between

- Sturdy
- Reforging
- Indestructible

WatersLethe wrote:


Since this is just a difference of taste at this point, I think I'll refrain from contributing further.

let's hope we can get clarifications ( it's almost 1 year after the release, and, with no offence, this should have addressed during the first months ).


@KrispyXIV that are of course very interesting observations. And while I certainly don't doubt your observations from the "high end" spectrum of shield users I would be very much interested in long time reports from some "low end" shield users.

A Druid or Warpriest that does not wear heavy armor, does not have armor mastery (so 5 AC less at level20), does not potentially have a shield ally for more DR and HP, does not have d10 HP and possibly does not have another reaction other than shield block.


Ubertron_X wrote:

@KrispyXIV that are of course very interesting observations. And while I certainly don't doubt your observations from the "high end" spectrum of shield users I would be very much interested in long time reports from some "low end" shield users.

A Druid or Warpriest that does not wear heavy armor, does not have armor mastery (so 5 AC less at level20), does not potentially have a shield ally for more DR and HP, does not have d10 HP and possibly does not have another reaction other than shield block.

On this, I think we significantly agree. I'd definitely like more experience with this, but I'm not personally likely to get it soon. I've also noted some hypothetical roadblocks that make shields awkward for those classes in general.

My druid player focused heavily on Wild Shape, and has never been in a position to be in combat with hands or cause to raise a shield.

The Cleric I'm currently playing went the Cloistered Cleric route (partially because that's the archetype I prefer, and partially because I'm of the school that believes that Warpriest lacks many compelling features by comparison to Cloistered), and while I took the Shield Cantrip I haven't had the action economy to use it. Spellcasting takes two actions, and my third is generally taken by moving, battle medicine, or now Demoralize (and eventually Inspire Courage).

I'm honestly not sure spellcasters in general have the action economy to use Shields as reliably as Martials.

That said, I'll likely later on try and get my hands on a spellguard shield once they are of the item level to be "cheap" - +2 to saves vs spells is silly good if I find myself needing to stand off against an enemy spellcaster.

I may eventually look into a Sturdy Shield with a Swift Block Cabachon for extra DR if I can live without the free hand...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Zapp wrote:
If you play official APs you will find that heroes go down regularly.

No, if I play official APs I might find that experience - but I also might not.

It does not do your arguments any favors to accompany them with claims that your experiences are the only possible experiences.

Because at this point you are basically insisting that I must be a liar if my experience of official APs is different from your own, and that's not discussion - that's you plugging your ears and going "lalalalalala"

Classic case of trying to make argument be about persons. I am not going to bite.

I will, however, reiterate that you will find that your willingness to destroy permanent items worth thousands of gold in order to avoid being downed is entirely alien to many gamers. In fact, that's the core of the argument!

Am I saying this to invalidate your gaming style? No.

But I am saying it to give you a heads-up as to why you might not understand the well-deserved criticism against the current shield implementation.

Regards,
Zapp


6 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
there have been no destroyed shields at all, ever.

Obviously you don't block if the hit is going to ruin your shield for you.

In fact, that's the whole criticism, that you need to use your face to save your shield.

Why are you stubbornly ignoring the actual arguments against the current shield implementation?


Zapp wrote:
Am I saying this to invalidate your gaming style? No.

When you say things like "If you play official APs you will find that heroes go down regularly." you absolutely are trying to invalidate opinions that differ from your own - some of which could very well be the gaming style you claim your not trying to invalidate.

You are implying that when I say "I have played official APs, and heroes don't go down regularly - at least not without having made glaringly bad choices" that either a) I'm lying about having actually played the official APs, or b) I'm lying about what happened when I did.


Zapp wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
there have been no destroyed shields at all, ever.

Obviously you don't block if the hit is going to ruin your shield for you.

In fact, that's the whole criticism, that you need to use your face to save your shield.

Why are you stubbornly ignoring the actual arguments against the current shield implementation?

Your arguments are ignoring the fact that the Shield Block feat/mechanic/game construct is not the only way to actually employ and block attacks with your shield.

If you have your shield Raised, you are using it to defend yourself. Period.

Making the metagame, tactical decision not to use the Shield Block feat is not actually equivalent to 'blocking attacks with your face instead of your shield'.

You're equating game mechanics directly to character actions in order to make the situation sound more absurd than it actually is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:


Obviously you don't block if the hit is going to ruin your shield for you.

In fact, that's the whole criticism, that you need to use your face to save your shield.

Even if you could block 3 times before the shield being destroyed, the same problem would come the 4th when you would use your face to save the shield.

So I don't think this argument really support more resilient shields (eventually indestructible shields).

It seems to me that "shield block" was conceived as a "sacrifice shield" last resort option, but then since it was cool, some designers wanted to have some class/feat make more use of it, so they also added the sturdy shield to make it possible, but now it feels frustrating to be limited to the sturdy.

Maybe each "shield block" dependent feat adding something like 10HP / 1 hardness to the shield used would help characters specializing in this unusual use of the shield?


Larsen wrote:
Zapp wrote:


Obviously you don't block if the hit is going to ruin your shield for you.

In fact, that's the whole criticism, that you need to use your face to save your shield.

Even if you could block 3 times before the shield being destroyed, the same problem would come the 4th when you would use your face to save the shield.

So I don't think this argument really support more resilient shields (eventually indestructible shields).

It seems to me that "shield block" was conceived as a "sacrifice shield" last resort option, but then since it was cool, some designers wanted to have some class/feat make more use of it, so they also added the sturdy shield to make it possible, but now it feels frustrating to be limited to the sturdy.

Good analisys.

Larsen wrote:


Maybe each "shield block" dependent feat adding something like 10HP / 1 hardness to the shield used would help characters specializing in this unusual use of the shield?

For what I have seen till now, 2 out of 3 possibilities which are related to "enhance" your shield are tied to the divine.

-Divine Ally Shield gives your shield 50% extra HP and 2 extra hardness ( by lvl 20, a champion could take shield paragon feat, which grants a permanent shield raise, an immortal shield, and doubles the HP bonuses from Divine Shield ally, from 50% to 100% extra HP ) (Champion)

-Emblazon Armament gives you the possibility to either put +1 damage on your weapon or 1 hardness on your shield ( Cleric )

-Everstand Stance allows you the possibility to wear your shield with 2 hands, increasing its damage die by 1 step and granting your shield 2 extra hardness ( this one is for both champions and fighters )

Paizo decided to give the possibility to "truely" ( because the other options are not even close to the divine ally feature ) enhance the shield to the champion class ( starting by lvl 3 ).

A specific class ( just the cleric ) has the possibility to expend a class feat ( not a skill, general, ancestry feat ) in order to get 1 extra hardness ( no extra HP ).

I could understand a similar possibility to the fighter class ( maybe 1 extra hardness as the cleric class ), but we must consider the champion while thinking about giving out options like these:

- A champion is allowed to take the shield specialization ( divine ally shield ) by lvl 3, but by doing so it is going to renounce to the critical weapon specialization.

- A champion is linked to Tennets and Anathemas. A Cleric is linked to Anathemas, A fighter is linked to nothing.

- A champion could take an extra divine Ally, but starting from lvl 8, by expending a class feat ( so, a champion could decide to forgo a lvl 8 class feat to enable its weapon criticial specialization, while maintaining its divine ally shield feature ).

It has to be noticed that a lvl 8 class feat has not the same value of a lvl 2 or 4 class feat. The higher the level, the more powerful the class feat.

So, maybe a Fighter could get 1 extra hardness by expending a level 4 class feat.

This should be balanced around clerics and champions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Larsen wrote:
Zapp wrote:


Obviously you don't block if the hit is going to ruin your shield for you.

In fact, that's the whole criticism, that you need to use your face to save your shield.

Even if you could block 3 times before the shield being destroyed, the same problem would come the 4th when you would use your face to save the shield.

So I don't think this argument really support more resilient shields (eventually indestructible shields).

It seems to me that "shield block" was conceived as a "sacrifice shield" last resort option, but then since it was cool, some designers wanted to have some class/feat make more use of it, so they also added the sturdy shield to make it possible, but now it feels frustrating to be limited to the sturdy.

Maybe each "shield block" dependent feat adding something like 10HP / 1 hardness to the shield used would help characters specializing in this unusual use of the shield?

What? This makes absolutely no sense. The whole point of being able to use a shield without them being destroyed is to have them BROKEN. You have the option of using your shield to save your face and it BREAKS, after that you CAN'T use it.

This argument of shields blocking more than once and then falling into the situation of "using your face to save the shield" makes no sense whatsoever because it relies on something that has no sense.

Also your "analysis" doesn't reflect the current state of the game right now. As I mentioned before in this thread, I made a Paladin build that could block three times PER ROUND, a shield Blocker Fighter at level 20 can block once per monster turn (it gains a reaction at each monster's turns).

There are no features that grants you benefits for destroyed shields, specially higher level ones (It seems like there's an upcoming feature that does that, so let's see how shields will be handled in the errata), while there are several shield builds that increases the amount of blocks, the sturdy shield exists, so it already implies that you can be blocking every attack you're able because it have the hardness and stats.

I'll state again: There is no reason why a Shield Focused character should have LESS options for shields than a dabbler. Non-Sturdy shields at higher levels should be able to block at least once and NOT be destroyed, they can either gain the broken condition or still be able to tank more, this should be the kind of trade-off that a character can make. Right now, if you want to make a Shield Build you're obligated to have a Sturdy Shield, because it have the best stats, it's a common item, it has progression and it's cheaper than every other shield that offer only HP and Hardness (all material shields are completely inferior to sturdy shields, 16th level items are INFERIOR to level 4 sturdy shields).


Lightning Raven, the more specialized ANY build is, the less options it has for gear.

The more a fighter commits to the Power Attack style, the less optimal non-two handed weapons become.

The more a Ranget commits to Flurry, the less optimal non-agile weapons are.

The more you commit to Shield Block, the less optimal non-blocking shields become.

That is the STANDARD way that specialization works.


Lightning Raven wrote:
Larsen wrote:
...
...

I might not have conveyed what I think properly, or have trouble understanding your post, but it seemed aggressive, while I agree with everything in it...

I tried to understand how the state of the game arrived to what it is now. The "shield sacrifice" was in this regard only the first step, not the finished game.

And the only argument I felt was not really convincing is "deciding to save the shield by taking the blow to the face should not happen", because it happens whether the shield can block 0 or 3 blows or more, as long as it can be destroyed! Which doesn't change the fact that I still think (as you do) that shield focused characters should have options (which is why I proposed a change so that they do).


Larsen, if a shield can tank 4 hits before breaking, when it takes the 4th it's probably going to break... not be destroyed.
A broken shield can be repaired after the fight (or during it!), a destroyed one is lost forever.
People are complaining that non-sturdy shield will be destroyed by blocking a hit, and thus you tank it with your face instead.


Oh, I was still reasoning with the broken condition in PF1 where you could still use the shield... My bad, then it would indeed be unlikely to destroy the shield


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I have done some math, based on same-level fights and high damage, as written on the monster creation guidelines.

First, let's see the average % of damage stopped by a shield block (this is not perfectly accurate because I just did hardness/average damage, without considering bell curves and the cases when you would stop more damage than what's actually incoming, but I think it's a good indicator regardless):

Level - Shield - %Dmg blocked:

1 - Steel Shield - 77%
3 - Steel Shield - 43%
4 - Sturdy Shield (Minor) - 57%
7 - Sturdy Shield (Lesser) - 50%
10 - Sturdy Shield (Moderate) - 50%
13 - Sturdy Shield (Greater) - 46%
15 - Reforging Shield - 41%
16 - Sturdy Shield (Major) - 45%
18 - Indestructible Shield - 33%
19 - Sturdy Shield (Supreme) - 48%

6 - Lion's Shield - 33%
6 - Spellguard Shield - 33%
7 - Spined Shield - 30%
9 - Force Shield - 33%
9 - Dragonslayer's Shield - 33%
10 - Forge Warden - 23%
11 - Floating Shield - 21%
11 - Arrow-Catching Shield - 21%
12 - Jawbreaker Shield - 39%
16 - Nethysian Bulwark - 27%
16 - Floating Shield (Greater) - 16%
18 - Reflecting Shield - 15%

As you can see, the situation is very good at level 1, but let's call that an outlier. Later on, if you are using a mundane shield before you can get a Sturdy one, and then when using a Sturdy or similar 'blocking' shield (except for the Indestructible one), you are stopping a % of incoming damage that is between 40% and 50% . But this does not include critical hits, and assumes that you are always fighting enemies that are the same level as your shield. If you could not upgrade your Sturdy Shield, or you still don't have the level to do it (like, you are probably still using a Moderate Sturdy Shield at level 12), this % goes down.
When you use a different kind of shield instead, the percentages start in a good range (30-33%), but consistently go down as you level. The only exception is the Jawbreaker Shield, which has a very respectable hardness.

Next step is the number of average hits a shield can take without breaking.

Level - Shield - #Hits:

1 - Steel Shield - 6
3 - Steel Shield - 1
4 - Sturdy Shield (Minor) - 5
7 - Sturdy Shield (Lesser) - 3
10 - Sturdy Shield (Moderate) - 3
13 - Sturdy Shield (Greater) - 3
15 - Reforging Shield - 2
16 - Sturdy Shield (Major) - 3
18 - Indestructible Shield - n/a
19 - Sturdy Shield (Supreme) - 3

6 - Lion's Shield - 1
6 - Spellguard Shield - 0
7 - Spined Shield - 1
9 - Force Shield - 0
9 - Dragonslayer's Shield - 0
10 - Forge Warden - 0
11 - Floating Shield - 0
11 - Arrow-Catching Shield - 0
12 - Jawbreaker Shield - 1
16 - Nethysian Bulwark - 0
16 - Floating Shield (Greater) - 0
18 - Reflecting Shield - 0

Quite regular: except for the first levels, you can block three times with most 'hard' shields (and the fourth block breaks them) - again, this does not include criticals; with the others, the first block will on average break them outright.

Let's examine this deeper, considering the actual chance of a shield being broken or destroyed on a single hit.
I won't include the 'blocking' line of shields because they will never break on a single, on level-hit.

Level - Shield - %Broken (destroyed):

1 - Steel Shield - 0% (0% destroyed)
3 - Steel Shield - 20% (0% destroyed)
6 - Lion's Shield - 5% (0% destroyed)
6 - Spellguard Shield - 56% (0% destroyed)
7 - Spined Shield - 21% (0% destroyed), includes -6 dmg from spine breaking
9 - Force Shield - 55% (0% destroyed)
9 - Dragonslayer's Shield - 55% (0% destroyed)
10 - Forge Warden - 96% (25% destroyed)
11 - Floating Shield - 99% (38% destroyed)
11 - Arrow-Catching Shield - 99% (38% destroyed)
12 - Jawbreaker Shield - 17% (0% destroyed)
16 - Nethysian Bulwark - 90% (2% destroyed)
16 - Floating Shield (Greater) - 100% (90% destroyed)
18 - Reflecting Shield - 100% (95% destroyed)

Things look decent at start, but become disastrous in the higher levels except, again, for the Jawbreaker Shield.
One could argue that the Nethysian Bulwark is working as intended, but I'd say that given its price it's not something that you want to use only for its exploding feature. Unless the fact that it explodes doesn't mean that it's lost (the rules don't actually say that); in this case, the shield is probably fine as it is.

Last table: same as before, but against critical hits. That's when a shield block should help you survive, but let's see what happens.

Level - Shield - %Broken (destroyed) on a critical:

1 - Steel Shield - 33% (0% destroyed)
3 - Steel Shield - 90% (40% destroyed)
4 - Sturdy Shield (Minor) - 5% (0% destroyed)
7 - Sturdy Shield (Lesser) - 15% (0% destroyed)
10 - Sturdy Shield (Moderate) - 10% (0% destroyed)
13 - Sturdy Shield (Greater) - 17% (0% destroyed)
15 - Reforging Shield - 44% (0% destroyed)
16 - Sturdy Shield (Major) - 21% (0% destroyed)
18 - Indestructible Shield - n/a
19 - Sturdy Shield (Supreme) - 10% (0% destroyed)

6 - Lion's Shield - 98% (23% destroyed)
6 - Spellguard Shield - 100% (84% destroyed)
7 - Spined Shield - 99% (72% destroyed), includes -6 dmg from spine breaking
9 - Force Shield - 100% (85% destroyed)
9 - Dragonslayer's Shield - 100% (85% destroyed)
10 - Forge Warden - 100% (100% destroyed)
11 - Floating Shield - 100% (100% destroyed)
11 - Arrow-Catching Shield - 100% (100% destroyed)
12 - Jawbreaker Shield - 100% (58% destroyed)
16 - Nethysian Bulwark - 100% (99% destroyed)
16 - Floating Shield (Greater) - 100% (100% destroyed)
18 - Reflecting Shield - 100% (100% destroyed)

Unless already damaged, Sturdy and similar shields will only break against the hardest critical damage rolls. Still, if the enemy rolls high just once, you are going to take full damage or lose your shield for the battle. Mundane shields after level 1 perform very badly on this account, but they are also very cheap; the Reforging Shield is quite prone to breaking, but at least it will never be destroyed on a single hit, allowing its reforging to function.
The other shields will basically always break when used to block a critical hit, and except for the Lion's Shield and the Jawbreaker Shield they will also be destroyed by a single one most (or all) of the time.
Now, the Greater Floating Shield should never actually block a hit, since you are going to make it hover; the regular one can only do that once per day, so I guess that you should only use it when the ability is available, and switch to a mundane, disposable one the rest of the time.
The same could be said for the Force shield.

Things get even worse against bosses, and only slightly better when fighting lower-level opponents. For example, an Arrow-Catching Shield still has a 72% chance to break against a single level 7 monster's attack, and 90% chance of being destroyed by a critical hit from said enemy.

Finally, let's analyse what they did with the only two shields that have special abilities but can still block sometimes: Lion's Shield and Jawbreaker Shield.
The Lion's Shield has got a lowish hardness, just slightly better than mundane steel, but its HP are 6x its hardness: the Reforging Shield and all Sturdy ones have 8x, while all the others (except Indestructible, which is special) have 4x.
This makes the Lion's blocks not expecially effective, but at a point where shields are still quite strong; and having more HPs allows it to survive decently well.
With the Jawbreaker, the developers went the other way: hardness is quite high, lower than sturdies but still enough to make it reliable against small hits; its low HPs instead mean that it will shatter against strong blows.
Both approaches are interesting and lead to shields that can block somewhat, while having something special to them.


KrispyXIV wrote:

Lightning Raven, the more specialized ANY build is, the less options it has for gear.

The more a fighter commits to the Power Attack style, the less optimal non-two handed weapons become.

The more a Ranget commits to Flurry, the less optimal non-agile weapons are.

The more you commit to Shield Block, the less optimal non-blocking shields become.

That is the STANDARD way that specialization works.

Two-handed fighters have several great options for it. Not only d12 weapons. They also can buy different runes, have specific weapons that have cool abilities (Shields have that, but can't block).

Flurry rangers can have vast amount of options because they can either melee rangers that can either opt for finesse weapons in DEX builds or more damaging weapons in a STR focused builds, they can also use two types of bows that offer some special arrows to further add versatility in playstyle.

A Shield-focused Fighter or champion will start the game with a Steel Shield and upgrade to a sturdy one at level 4 because it's the first upgrade, then he will reach the 6th level and look for an upgrade and will see a "Lion Shield" which has half HP and -2 hardness compared to his level 4 item, the Lion also costs 2.5x times, after that the stat difference just grows, which is when at level 15 you have the "option" between a common item and a RARE item that inherently needs the GM to grant you either access or give it to you as loot. The only time where a shield player truly has choice is at level 7 which is between a spike shield (Hardness6/HP24/BT12 +30 HP from spikes) and a Sturdy Shield, the former grants you ranged attacks that cost your shield HP but it regrows every day, so if you attack with it you reduce its durability and if you block with it you have less attacks to make. If only this choice presented itself at higher levels.

I'll not even mention special material shields because they are a complete joke. They don't offer special benefits, their stats are inferior and the price is beyond absurd. For example, a High-Grade Adamantine Shield(16th level) costs 8800GP and it has Hardness 10/HP 40/BT 20, meanwhile a Minor Sturdy Shield(4th level) costs 100gp and has Hardness 8/HP 64/BT 32, this doesn't sound right, does it? If you compare with a Lesser Sturdy Shield (Hardness 10/HP80/BT40) that costs 365 gp, things gets even worse, the Sturdy shield is twice as good and at a fraction of the cost.

301 to 350 of 814 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Sturdy Shield good for the game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.