I've said it before and I'll say it again - having multiple options for a Common Blocking Shield is rules clutter, taking up unnecessary page space when you only need one statblock to satisfy that need.
We could have three options for a Blocking Shield at every tier - and may eventually - but there'd still be a good design reason to separate those from the strong utility shields in order to enforce a character choice between various utilities (Shield Block support, or other niche benefits). And to not put all three in the core rulebook.
Just like there isn't a need for three different two handed hammers, there isn't a need for three different Blocking shields. Its much better to provide a shield that is optimal for shield blocking, and then provide options for shield roles other than Shield Blocking.
And yeah, special material shields are a joke. They likely need some sort of perk, but that doesn't mean they should be bloaty alternatives to Sturdy Shields.
That entire point of Adamantine is that its extremely hard and durable. If there is any mundane shield that should be able to survive an on level hit, it should be an adamantine shield.
But does that happen? No because the shield stats are inherently broken for mundane shields. You excuse it as "variety" but all I see is characters being forced to one weapon.
Also comparing them to multiple hammers is absurd because the game offers multiple blunt weapons with many different traits. There is more variety of hammers than there are potential shields for a shield blocking character.
And no, 2 Rare items that are from specific campaigns are not "options". Saying that the rest of the shields are fine because of those 2 shields might maybe be given to you by a generous GM flies against what this edition wanted to be: Given more options.
No one is arguing Adamantine shields are fine, barring perhaps that you could make other shields from adamantine.
It sounds like you are arguing we should have in the core rulebook Sturdy Shields, Resilient Shields, and Hardy Shields, each of which are suitable for blocking in slightly different ways - just for the sake of having the appearance of options.
Which sounds like clutter to me. No need to have Red Sturdy shields and Blue Sturdy shields as unique statblocks in core.
I still argue majority of the utility shields do not need blocking stats to be viable options. The utility offered is powerful enough that being even remotely competitive or viable for blocking will make them instantly superior to shields only capable of blocking.
Having a Shield that can block bigger hits but fewer of them is a totally valid shield to have in core.
And thats exactly what Adamantine vs Steel Shields are.
The problem is Steel shields have Sturdy makinking them many times better than Adamantine at 1/4th the level and 1/8th the price.
Btw are you saying that Forge Warden and Arrow Catching getting destroyed doing their job is "powerful"? Because to me they are the epitome of bad shield design.
Forge Warden is fine due to providing AOE fire resistance with a "ribbon" on it as its ability. Its not great, but its handly useless either. Plenty of opportunities to use its ability without it being destroyed at its level, if you're careful.
Arrow Catching shield is a potent ally saver that really wants for a mechanic like the Dragonslayer shield, where it would have higher hardness or at least resistance to ranged attacks.
Or if you didn't have to use the Shield Block portion, allowing you to just force ranged attacks to target your Shield-Raised AC.
Arrow Catching almost certainly needs a fix, but it doesn't necessarily need a unconditional stat buff either.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Special shields should not have values at all. Everything should be a rune including sturdy. This is the easiest way to have shields increase in level and e.g. have an silver lion shield or an adamantine sturdy shield.
The biggest issue with Shield Runes as a hypothetical fix is that the ship has likely already sailed for that possibility.
Its fine for homebrew, but if we're looking for fixes to the core game its almost certainly got to be lobbying for fixes to specific shields themselves.
I think special material shields are badly broken enough that errata may be a reasonable possibility.
The biggest issue with Shield Runes as a hypothetical fix is that the ship has likely already sailed for that possibility.
Its fine for homebrew, but if we're looking for fixes to the core game its almost certainly got to be lobbying for fixes to specific shields themselves.
I think special material shields are badly broken enough that errata may be a reasonable possibility.
To me, it seems like special material shields came from a rules revision in which Shield Runes existed. Were that the case, they'd be fine. Without that, yeah, they are sort of the thing in the CRB that nobody should buy.
I'm very curious to see what shields are present in the APG. If there are magical special material shields in there, or perhaps "shield runes" that can only be placed on non-magical shields, I think we'll be in a good spot, and only need errata to cover the Arrow-Catching Shield and Forge Warden.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest issue with Shield Runes as a hypothetical fix is that the ship has likely already sailed for that possibility.
Its fine for homebrew, but if we're looking for fixes to the core game its almost certainly got to be lobbying for fixes to specific shields themselves.
I think special material shields are badly broken enough that errata may be a reasonable possibility.
To me, it seems like special material shields came from a rules revision in which Shield Runes existed. Were that the case, they'd be fine. Without that, yeah, they are sort of the thing in the CRB that nobody should buy.
I'm very curious to see what shields are present in the APG. If there are magical special material shields in there, or perhaps "shield runes" that can only be placed on non-magical shields, I think we'll be in a good spot, and only need errata to cover the Arrow-Catching Shield and Forge Warden.
My take on special material shields was that they were included for the sake of completion, and that their stat blocks and costs weren't written with concern to whether they were actually usable, so much as they were to answer "what are the stats and cost of an adamantine shield".
...thats not really satisfying for anyone, though, in the end. It would explain their listed stats.
My take on special material shields was that they were included for the sake of completion, and that their stat blocks and costs weren't written with concern to whether they were actually usable, so much as they were to answer "what are the stats and cost of an adamantine shield".
...thats not really satisfying for anyone, though, in the end.
Also fair. In that case, they are just a starting point for making custom magic items with the GMG guidelines. Which is not an unreasonable thing to do, though a sentence saying something like "Shields made out of special materials are often enchanted, as well, though no such shields appear in this book." Just like the line about what armors can be made from Darkwood. (Wooden armors, which don't appear in the CRB).
Honestly, I just wish they kept the dent system. As much as people wanted the familiarity of HP, the dent system just made the process simpler for Blocking purposes. I kinda wished they would have included it as a variant rule in the GMG, but alas.
Honestly, I just wish they kept the dent system. As much as people wanted the familiarity of HP, the dent system just made the process simpler for Blocking purposes. I kinda wished they would have included it as a variant rule in the GMG, but alas.
My only problem with the Dent system at the time was that it was made so that a shield would never be destroyed in a single hit, which doesn't make much sense. I much rather have the HP system, with good numbers, so that the amount of damage is variable and so that the possibility of a single-hit destruction to still exist on rare occasions.
Even though now I advocate for better non-sturdy shields so that they aren't destroyed in a single hit, the difference is that in my view, shields being completely destroyed should happen on thoses cases of massive hits (I would definitely sacrifice my shield if it meant that my character wouldn't be killed if he was downed, since this happened a few times already with me) dealt by bosses critical hits.
Just as perspective, that were several fights we won in Age of Ashes that we were hanging by a thread, against a spellcaster, only our Wizard was left standing with 30 HP while everyone else was down. It also happened just 3 sessions ago, when my Monk was left standing with 58 HP against 3 healthy enemies, 2 thugs (PL-2) and a Bruiser (PL-1), I managed to whittle them down (hit and run tactics, Winding Flow is amazing), but it was by a hair's breadth and I'm 100% sure that any of my mates would trade their shields to avoid getting down by the several critical hits (all characters have means of healing or other ways to stay longer in a fight given the chance).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just like there isn't a need for three different two handed hammers, there isn't a need for three different Blocking shields. Its much better to provide a shield that is optimal for shield blocking, and then provide options for shield roles other than Shield Blocking.
Sorry, but I don't think this is a fair comparison at all. "Shields for blocking" are a much broader category, gameplay-wise, than a Maul. If you wanna make this comparison, you can say "Why we need to have a lot of two-handed weapons? They all fill the same build niche anyway with minor differences. Why not have just one?"
Technically, that would work. But it would also be boring as hell. Because pigeonholing an entire combat style with a multitude of feats for it and more to come to a single item with zero special properties is boring as hell.
Just like there isn't a need for three different two handed hammers, there isn't a need for three different Blocking shields. Its much better to provide a shield that is optimal for shield blocking, and then provide options for shield roles other than Shield Blocking.Sorry, but I don't think this is a fair comparison at all. "Shields for blocking" are a much broader category, gameplay-wise, than a Maul. If you wanna make this comparison, you can say "Why we need to have a lot of two-handed weapons? They all fill the same build niche anyway with minor differences. Why not have just one?"
Technically, that would work. But it would also be boring as hell. Because pigeonholing an entire combat style with a multitude of feats for it and more to come to a single item with zero special properties is boring as hell.
Shields are not weapons. There is inherently less variety to shields than weapons, and they do less.
There is no mechanical reason to differenciate between them to nearly the degree the game does with weapons.
We already have like, 4 entries for shield profiles compared to 2 full pages of entries for weapons.
Of course there are commensurately less options for Blocking Shields.
There is no mechanical reason because of how the devs have design them.
But there is a huge space for what types of shields are available. From the hard but frail, capable to take multiple medium sized hits without breaking. To the soft and durable, which might not block much but can sure take a beating.
(That is what i though Adamantine vs Sturdy Shield would become)
I actually think those are great ideas - but don't necessarily think they needed to be in the core book.
You're talking about something like a "Hardened Shield", which has 20% more hardness than an equal level Sturdy Shield, but dramatically fewer total hitpoints?
The Reforging Shield may actually fit the role of your softer but more durable shield, and the lower level Spined Shield also fits a similar role.
Why shouldnt it had been on core?
Core is were there should be the most variety because many people wont ever get something passed that.
Core has limited page-count though - its a practical matter. One blocking shield and as many utility shields as they can fit in the limited space allotted is a better decision from a design standpoint.
Note that as it stands, I would concede that the space given to special material shields could have been better utilized.
There is no mechanical reason because of how the devs have design them.
But there is a huge space for what types of shields are available. From the hard but frail, capable to take multiple medium sized hits without breaking. To the soft and durable, which might not block much but can sure take a beating.
(That is what i though Adamantine vs Sturdy Shield would become)
I actually think those are great ideas - but don't necessarily think they needed to be in the core book.
You're talking about something like a "Hardened Shield", which has 20% more hardness than an equal level Sturdy Shield, but dramatically fewer total hitpoints?
The Reforging Shield may actually fit the role of your softer but more durable shield, and the lower level Spined Shield also fits a similar role.
The Spined Shield doesn't work so well, actually. Against a same-level opponent it breaks on the first block 21% of the time, and a single critical will often destroy it; so it doesn't have that much durability.
The Spined Shield doesn't work so well, actually. Against a same-level opponent it breaks on the first block 21% of the time, and a single critical will often destroy it; so it doesn't have that much durability.There is no mechanical reason because of how the devs have design them.
But there is a huge space for what types of shields are available. From the hard but frail, capable to take multiple medium sized hits without breaking. To the soft and durable, which might not block much but can sure take a beating.
(That is what i though Adamantine vs Sturdy Shield would become)
I actually think those are great ideas - but don't necessarily think they needed to be in the core book.
You're talking about something like a "Hardened Shield", which has 20% more hardness than an equal level Sturdy Shield, but dramatically fewer total hitpoints?
The Reforging Shield may actually fit the role of your softer but more durable shield, and the lower level Spined Shield also fits a similar role.
Eh... we're back to, you can use it to safely block damage that isn't in the upper 51% more than a couple times, and you'll have plenty of opportunities to do so. The fact that you can't mindlessly block is again, part of the design of the entire mechanic.
The spined shield can also, theoretically, take 42 damage before breaking best case (12 + 30 for spines). That's 2 more than it takes to break an equal level Sturdy shield (Sturdy technically takes a bit more due to hardness, but its closer than you'd think), but its the same cost - and is ALSO a +1 striking weapon that is ALSO a +1 striking ranged attack with a 120 foot ranged increment.
The budget in the item for those utility abilities has to come from somewhere, and that's it being less good at blocking than an equal level Sturdy Shield.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you can't mindlessly block is again, part of the design of the entire mechanic.
I think that's the hang-up. "Not mindlessly blocking" bears an awfully big resemblance to thinking "take it in the face, save the shield", which is not something I want crossing my mind if I'm playing a shield-focused character.
And to be clear, I think the least invasive change would be to scrap "shield block" as a name for "sacrifice shield", instead. Make it clear to players who are sinking character resources such as class feats into this tactic are doing so with the expectation that any single "sacrifice shield" action could result in their shield (and potentially, a good chunk of their wealth) getting scrapped. Make it clear that using "sacrifice shield" and then still having your shield (whether due to a lucky low-damage roll or due to the shield being one of the few types meant to be sacrificed multiple times) should be considered the exception. That way, if they want to keep a shield as an iconic part of their equipment roster, they know better than to pick up class feats revolving around "sacrifice shield".
The fact that you can't mindlessly block is again, part of the design of the entire mechanic.I think that's the hang-up. "Not mindlessly blocking" bears an awfully big resemblance to thinking "take it in the face, save the shield", which is not something I want crossing my mind if I'm playing a shield-focused character.
And to be clear, I think the least invasive change would be to scrap "shield block" as a name for "sacrifice shield", instead. Make it clear to players who are sinking character resources such as class feats into this tactic are doing so with the expectation that any single "sacrifice shield" action could result in their shield (and potentially, a good chunk of their wealth) getting scrapped. Make it clear that using "sacrifice shield" and then still having your shield (whether due to a lucky low-damage roll or due to the shield being one of the few types meant to be sacrificed multiple times) should be considered the exception. That way, if they want to keep a shield as an iconic part of their equipment roster, they know better than to pick up class feats revolving around "sacrifice shield".
Or... and this is just a thought... you get a shield that's intended to work with the Shield Block mechanic and synergises with it, more or less as much as you could want, but doesn't offer any additional utility instead and use that shield.
If you do want to play the guy who blocks everything, they have you covered - there's an item for that playstyle, and its really good.
But that's not all shields, and there's no compelling reason that it should be.
Again though, 33 levels of DMing with Shield Champions, and they never had an issue, they never lost a shield, and they used a variety of shields to both raise and block with. I didn't notice any issues with shield diversity, or with 'lesser' shields not being useful, including for the occasional block.
PF2 is all about making tactical decisions. The use of your shield is no different - finding the action to raise your shield, and deciding when and if to use shield block if its an option for you are the involved tactical choices.
|
What if the real point of a shield were to reduce damage from critical hits? Here's the idea:
When you Raise your shield you get the shield's AC bonus. When you Shield Block, it reduces the step of the attack that hit you by 1 step. So if you are hit by a critical hit, you can reduce it to a regular hit instead by using the block.
There could also be a feat for Improved Shield Block, and then if the attack were a normal hit, you could also reduce it 1 step to a miss.
Each time it reduces a hit, it could take 1 dent. Higher level shields and Sturdy shields could take more dents before becoming Broken. You could still use a Broken shield to block hits, but in addition to providing a lower AC bonus, each time the shield blocks damage it would have to make a saving throw or be destroyed.
What if the real point of a shield were to reduce damage from critical hits? Here's the idea:
When you Raise your shield you get the shield's AC bonus. When you Shield Block, it reduces the step of the attack that hit you by 1 step. So if you are hit by a critical hit, you can reduce it to a regular hit instead by using the block.
There could also be a feat for Improved Shield Block, and then if the attack were a normal hit, you could also reduce it 1 step to a miss.
Each time it reduces a hit, it could take 1 dent. Higher level shields and Sturdy shields could take more dents before becoming Broken. You could still use a Broken shield to block hits, but in addition to providing a lower AC bonus, each time the shield blocks damage it would have to make a saving throw or be destroyed.
So, I mean... shields already reduce damage from crits by virtue of potentially turning two results that would be criticals into normal hits.
It is currently a bigger benefit to using a Shield Block in any scenario.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that if Sturdy is a rune or any type of upgrade, then it's basically going to be on literally every shield because there's no reason for it not to be. By separating Sturdy and other effects, you can have more interesting design.
Does that mean that shields are totally fine? Probably not - as noted, some of the shields you want to block with are unreliably effective even against things of similar level, and that needs fixing.
All that would change if Sturdy were a rune is that people would complain that Sturdy was basically mandatory, because it's better at Shield Block than other runes.
The problem is that if Sturdy is a rune or any type of upgrade, then it's basically going to be on literally every shield because there's no reason for it not to be. By separating Sturdy and other effects, you can have more interesting design.
Does that mean that shields are totally fine? Probably not - as noted, some of the shields you want to block with are unreliably effective even against things of similar level, and that needs fixing.
All that would change if Sturdy were a rune is that people would complain that Sturdy was basically mandatory, because it's better at Shield Block than other runes.
As I see it, this IS what some people complain about
so making it a rune you could slap on other shields (fundamental rune like +x, striking or resillient) would solve the problem od tin foil shields| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that if Sturdy is a rune or any type of upgrade, then it's basically going to be on literally every shield because there's no reason for it not to be. By separating Sturdy and other effects, you can have more interesting design.
Does that mean that shields are totally fine? Probably not - as noted, some of the shields you want to block with are unreliably effective even against things of similar level, and that needs fixing.
All that would change if Sturdy were a rune is that people would complain that Sturdy was basically mandatory, because it's better at Shield Block than other runes.
Well... One would even say that... Sturdy Rune was an Fundamental Rune, huh?
And to me, that doesn't sound like a discussion of functional vs. not-functional, but one of current power scale vs. a deliberately higher power scale.
Agreed.
Based on my experience, shields already provide massive damage reduction through Raise Shield, and the game likely does not want to further push what is already an extremely effective build without some sort of limitation, like a sacrifice of utility to go along with the extra damage reduction.
However, we are not talking about raising a shield which anyone can do. We are talking about shield blocking which is something you must actively choose to get (baring a few classes).
I'm going to focus on this because its definitely a bit overstated that Raising a Shield is something "anyone can do".
It is something that technically anyone can do.
Classes that aren't focused around shields have to commit significant resources (one of their three actions) to Raising their shield, and many of those classes (Casters - I'm talking about Casters) have action economies that are not permissive. You can't move, cast, and raise a shield.
Your Martial characters can generally move about, fulfil their purpose, and Raise a Shield.
I'm not saying that casters shouldn't carry a shield for when its extremely important to get those benefits - but some classes are absolutely better at using shields, and it still has little to do with Shield Block.
Nonsense. Let's look at fighters for example, they select one weapon group to have higher proficiency, but even within that there are multiple weapons.That's not even remotely a fair comparison.You're going to have to explain why, because it seems apt to me.
_
glass.
Because there's no significant difference between the basic functionality of one shield and another. And weapons have a ton of variety in form, function, and base mundane options presented in the rulebook.
We have two pages of base weapon options, and four entries for shields. It should really be three entries for shields, because the difference between a wooden shield and a steel shield should be immaterial.
But anyway, four base entries for shields - and only one of those is really relevant most of the time (+2 AC, no additional drawbacks like with a tower shield).
And adding anything more to this base level would be obvious, unnecessary bloat because there's no need for it.
It follows then, that there is probably less need for a huge variety of derivative magical shields arising from this inherently smaller variety of base shields.