Then looking at the cost and you can see just how inflated the prices are. Buying multiple low/mid level sturdy shields and cycling them every combat is considerably cheaper than any other option when it comes to Shield blocking. The only problem is the weight, but that is what a cart/mule is for.
One "at-level" Sturdy seems to be plenty for most characters. If you really want to swap, there's also bags of holding.
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.
So you're saying that it is not a fair comparison because their is a lot more choice for even a specialised weapon user than there is for a shield user? Because that rather takes the argument that shield specialists being super limited is business as usual for specialist in the game and shoots it in in the head.
IOW, other kinds of specialists having massively more options than shield specialist was not a reason why the comparison was unfair, it was my point. It successfully, IMNSHO, rebuts the argument that specialists must perforce be disallowed any options.
_
glass.
No, I'm saying that there isn't nearly as much room for a diverse range of Shields, and it doesn't matter anyway because 'Shield Specialists' in this case only really need one archetype of shield to support them anyway - the Sturdy Shield, and those very similar to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm saying that there isn't nearly as much room for a diverse range of Shields, and it doesn't matter anyway because 'Shield Specialists' in this case only really need one archetype of shield to support them anyway - the Sturdy Shield, and those very similar to it.That argument is self-defeating, because there is a diverse range of shields, but most of them are only suitable for dabblers. Hence this whole thread.
_
glass.
If you are ignoring stuff like the Spellguard shield as a specialist because you feel you must be using Shield Block all the time, you are misplaying your character and shooting yourself in the foot.
It is not the fault of the game if you choose to cripple your character by refusing to use the appropriate tool for a given encounter.
Its like complaining about DR slashing because you're a greatsword specialist. You chose to specialize in Shield Block, the game is not obligated to warp to make your choice more versatile.
If you want to take Spellguard then Shield Block is not a problem.
The occaisional DR slashing vs Greatsword is not the same as only having one Shield.
DR slashing affects all slashing weapons equally. Shield blocking specifically favors Sturdy Shields.
Using the right tool for the right problem is a base part of RPG design. If you want to Shield Block, use an appropriate tool. Theres no fundamental problem with that paradigm.
If you want to be the 2-4 shield blocks a round guy, they covered you by including a shield to cover that build in the core rulebook. That is why the Sturdy exists.
All those other shields? Those are for normal shield use and for Shield Blockers to use when appropriate.
Is a shield not getting destroyed because you used it as intended...
Using the Shield Block Reaction to destroy your shield is not use as intended. Developer commentary agrees that you should never lose a shield to blocking unless you find it extremely necessary.
Using your shield with the Raise Shield action... as intended... will never result in its destruction.
|
Is a shield not getting destroyed because you used it as intended...Using the Shield Block Reaction to destroy your shield is not use as intended. Developer commentary agrees that you should never lose a shield to blocking unless you find it extremely necessary.
Using your shield with the Raise Shield action... as intended... will never result in its destruction.
Except...there have been multiple demonstrated cases where that does prove true.
Except...there have been multiple demonstrated cases where that does prove true.
Is a shield not getting destroyed because you used it as intended...Using the Shield Block Reaction to destroy your shield is not use as intended. Developer commentary agrees that you should never lose a shield to blocking unless you find it extremely necessary.
Using your shield with the Raise Shield action... as intended... will never result in its destruction.
There's literally zero possibility of your shield being destroyed if you only use Shield Block when your shield won't be destroyed. Its as simple as that. Choosing to block an attack that that will destroy your shield is not mandatory, and should never really happen.
There's a developer quote in a recent thread in the rules forum that was referenced that the intent of the current design was to make shields destroyable, but that they shouldn't ever be destroyed without the player deciding to do that.
If you use Raise Shield - the basic shield action, which provides the majority of their defensive benefits - there is zero risk, ever.
The game is not designed for you to use Shield Block with all shields at all levels.
Shields are an extremely powerful boon for characters that choose to use them, and there are shields to support playstyles that do want to make heavy use of Shield Block.
There are a few specific examples of shields that don't fulfill their apparent purpose (this does not include the Reflective Shield, or other high level shields you can't block with).
The "problem" is not with the game or the general mechanics of shields, or even the majority of shields. Those work just fine.
I'm not trying to be offensive here, but this feels like people wanting a square peg to go into a round whole, or the earlier noted "straight power bump to shields for no needed reason" - shields are the opposite of weak.
The game is not designed for you to use Shield Block with all shields at all levels.
Fine, but I feel like that's not at all what people are arguing. Can you confidently say there isn't any design space for "Middle shields" that can afford to take one, maybe two reasonable hits but still have some sort of auxiliary bonus?
The shield situation currently feels very all-or-nothing and I feel like that's one of the main issues people have, people aren't demanding all shields become viable blocking shields.
Krispy that is the problem its like you are ignoring our points.
Uh... you must have missed where I agreed that several of those specifically probably need adjusted (other than Forge Warden, which is probably OK if not amazing).
What I'm opposed to is the argument that you "must use your face to save your shield", because that is absolutely not the case.
You are not intended to be using shields regularly in ways they would be destroyed. IE, the Reflective Shield is not for blocking at-level foes.
If other shields - like the Arrow Catching Shield - can't be used, that's a separate problem that doesn't relate to face-blocking for shields or whether its bad that theres only one shield that caters to extremely specialized multiple blocks a turn builds.
The game is not designed for you to use Shield Block with all shields at all levels.Fine, but I feel like that's not at all what people are arguing. Can you confidently say there isn't any design space for "Middle shields" that can afford to take one, maybe two reasonable hits but still have some sort of auxiliary bonus?
The shield situation currently feels very all-or-nothing and I feel like that's one of the main issues people have, people aren't demanding all shields become viable blocking shields.
Like the Spined Shield or Reforging Shield?
There is room, and they exist. More will come out over time.
The Arrow Catching shield should also probably fall into this category, with the ability to catch the errant deadly shot for your ally without being destroyed (being broken and needing repairs is probably fine - thats a powerful ability).
I am beginning to think that apart from some real mechanical issues where shield have to be used in order to create effects but won't survive that usage this is as much an expectation vs reality vs design issue.
In PF1 not everybody could use a shield, but those who could had the privilege of having much higher AC than those who could not. PF2 did away with this and now everybody can use a shield for AC (which considering how the PF2 math works probably was the right thing to do).
As a "compensation" (sorry, no better word) all former shield users got the shield block feat for free. And while it reads fantastic if you havent played PF2 much yet the thing is, mechanically the shield block feat is way, way weaker than PF1 shield proficiency.
So after first reading I was: "Wow, my warpriest and our fighter can block a certain amount of damage every single round, that's great!", whereas in play it quickly became apparent that this is mostly not the case.
You need the action economy to raise the shield (and as has been discussed within this thread with raising the shield most of the work is already done; less action economy problem for our fighter but a huge problem for my warpriest), you need the reaction to block being available (less problem for my warpriest but a huge problem for our fighter) and lastly and most importantly for this thread, you need a shield that can actually absorb 1 to X hits (huge problem for both of us as at level 7 we are still struck to spellguard shield and steel shield respectively).
The thing is, action economy and reaction management are things that are 100% within the player agenda. What is not within the player agenda is availability of shields (but for the sake of argument let's wave this issue) and what is also not within the player and perhaps even GM agenda is shield stats.
So if you want to improve the mileage of your shield block feat you need to use a shield that enables multiple blocks, much like the fighter needs to use a weapon of a specific group in order to utilize the benefits of his weapon mastery.
And this is where expectation vs reality vs design kicks in. It is a long way from expecting to block most often in any given combat to realizing that you will actually only be able to block once in a blue moon (some classes more than others of course) while asking yourself if everything is indeed working as intended.
The argument that "letting 'special' shields block with at least some effectiveness would be unbalanced" doesn't hold.
Why? Because at level 6 the Lion's Shield can block most non-critical hits once per battle without breaking, stopping 6 damage that represent 1/3 of the average incoming damage. Even the more fragile Spellguard Shield can be used on roughly half of non-critical hits without breaking. And they do cool things too.
Now, when damage and HP scale up with levels, the shields' stats should do the same to remain balanced - maybe barring some specific exceptions that could make sense that way.
Imagine a higher level Greater Lion's Shield that does 4d6 with its bite, but has got the same hardness, BT and HP than the normal one. Why would you make it so? You could use it to bite and to block at level 6, and now at level 16 you can only bite (and the damage is still in line with what's expected), because if you try to block not only it's most probably destroyed, but it also only stops 16% of incoming damage instead of 33%.
And the Reflecting Shield resembles an upgraded Spellguard Shield, but has got the same stats so you can't sometimes block with the latter like you did with the former.
To reiterate: Sturdy Shields stop about 40-50% of an average non-critical hits at all levels of play. Non-sturdy shields have decreasing effectiveness in blocking, added to the fact that you must completely stop using them that way past level 10, maybe before that.
So this can't be a matter of balance.
I am beginning to think that apart from some real mechanical issues where shield have to be used in order to create effects but won't survive that usage this is as much an expectation vs reality vs design issue.
In PF1 not everybody could use a shield, but those who could had the privilege of having much higher AC than those who could not. PF2 did away with this and now everybody can use a shield for AC (which considering how the PF2 math works probably was the right thing to do).
As a "compensation" (sorry, no better word) all former shield users got the shield block feat for free. And while it reads fantastic if you havent played PF2 much yet the thing is, mechanically the shield block feat is way, way weaker than PF1 shield proficiency.
So after first reading I was: "Wow, my warpriest and our fighter can block a certain amount of damage every single round, that's great!", whereas in play it quickly became apparent that this is mostly not the case.
You need the action economy to raise the shield (and as has been discussed within this thread with raising the shield most of the work is already done; less action economy problem for our fighter but a huge problem for my warpriest), you need the reaction to block being available (less problem for my warpriest but a huge problem for our fighter) and lastly and most importantly for this thread, you need a shield that can actually absorb 1 to X hits (huge problem for both of us as at level 7 we are still struck to spellguard shield and steel shield respectively).
The thing is, action economy and reaction management are things that are 100% within the player agenda. What is not within the player agenda is availability of shields (but for the sake of argument let's wave this issue) and what is also not within the player and perhaps even GM agenda is shield stats.
So if you want to improve the mileage of your shield block feat you need to use a shield that enables multiple blocks, much like the fighter needs to use a weapon of a specific group in...
This is a really good post.
I think my take away or callout from it may be that if you do want to be able to block multiple attacks on the regular, this is a more niche build than it appears to be, leading to a disconnect with expectation v. reality.
Btw, something not talked about, is that Adamantine Weapon half the hardness unless they have a larger hardness. So most shields can easily go from barely safe to not safe at all.
In reality though, is this talking about a reduction of 3 (in the case of the standard non-blocking shield hardness of 6), at at the maximum of 6 (13 reduced to 6)?
Also, Adamantine Weapons and Shield Block are both typically 'player oriented' mechanics, so while this is true I don't think its likely to be a significant problem in play.
About the Spined Shield
The Spined shield is probably one of the best shield ( for its concept ), and the way it works is definitely perfect.You have a shield not meant for shield block, but that could be used in order to perform a block and, if you have enough spines left, it could even withstand a lvl 20 blow ( 24 HP + 6 Hardness + 6x5=30 = 60 HP )
That's not as I read the rules:
When you use the Shield Block reaction with this shield, the spines take the damage before the shield itself does. When the shield would take damage (after applying Hardness), one spine snaps off per 6 damage, reducing the damage by 6. The shield takes any remaining damage. When there are no spines left, the shield takes damage as normal.
To me, the part I bolded means that no more than one spine can absorb damage from a given hit. This reduces the survivability of the shield a lot.
About the Spined Shield
The Spined shield is probably one of the best shield ( for its concept ), and the way it works is definitely perfect.You have a shield not meant for shield block, but that could be used in order to perform a block and, if you have enough spines left, it could even withstand a lvl 20 blow ( 24 HP + 6 Hardness + 6x5=30 = 60 HP )
That's not as I read the rules:
When you use the Shield Block reaction with this shield, the spines take the damage before the shield itself does. When the shield would take damage (after applying Hardness), one spine snaps off per 6 damage, reducing the damage by 6. The shield takes any remaining damage. When there are no spines left, the shield takes damage as normal.To me, the part I bolded means that no more than one spine can absorb damage from a given hit. This reduces the survivability of the shield a lot.
It says explicitly, one spine per six damage.
The intent appears to be that it reduces 6 damage per spine, not that you receive 30 damage, all five spines pop off, and you reduce by six total.
About the Spined Shield
The Spined shield is probably one of the best shield ( for its concept ), and the way it works is definitely perfect.You have a shield not meant for shield block, but that could be used in order to perform a block and, if you have enough spines left, it could even withstand a lvl 20 blow ( 24 HP + 6 Hardness + 6x5=30 = 60 HP )
That's not as I read the rules:
When you use the Shield Block reaction with this shield, the spines take the damage before the shield itself does. When the shield would take damage (after applying Hardness), one spine snaps off per 6 damage, reducing the damage by 6. The shield takes any remaining damage. When there are no spines left, the shield takes damage as normal.To me, the part I bolded means that no more than one spine can absorb damage from a given hit. This reduces the survivability of the shield a lot.It says explicitly, one spine per six damage.
The intent appears to be that it reduces 6 damage per spine, not that you receive 30 damage, all five spines pop off, and you reduce by six total.
You are right, somehow I missed that 'per 6 damage' everytime I read the passage.
The Spined Shield is fine, then, like the other shields around its level. The problems come later on.
The game is not designed for you to use Shield Block with all shields at all levels.Once again, a variety of interesting shields != all shields.
I'm not trying to be offensive hereThen how about you stop misrepresenting any view which does not coincide exactly with yours?
_
glass.
I'm just saying, the core rulebook has limited space.
In that space, it provided a definitive option to support shield block builds, a number of strong utility shields, a couple shields in that blocking middle ground (dragonslayer shield and spined shield are likely good examples of what these should be, whereas the arrow catching shield is a definitive miss).
Theres also the Special Material shields, which do not appear to have been written with usability in mind.
To me, that doesnt represent a systemic failure. Its the base list of shields, which is fully functional (all builds have at least enough support to work, with limited selection), and current expansions show more options for some of those classes of items that have only limited representation are on the way.
Also, it is absolutely the expected result that someone who is not committed to a specific aspect of shields would have the broadest selection, as they don't need to focus on any given mechanic. Specialization always reduces options, its... fundamental to Specialization.
So where is the problem? The goal of the core book is to make sure people have the options they need to succeed - the Sturdy shield does that. No one needs multiple options in the core book to cater to their niche build. Those are a luxury, not a design issue.
Those will come later, in expansion material.
Its only a problem if you assume that the use of Shield Block is intended to be routine or "The Norm" as opposed to an opportunistic bonus or something you spec into with gear and feats. The Norm is Raise Shield - Shield Block is the low-value bonus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So where is the problem? The goal of the core book is to make sure people have the options they need to succeed - the Sturdy shield does that. No one needs multiple options in the core book to cater to their niche build. Those are a luxury, not a design issue.
This seems a little uncharitable to me. Shield blocking is hardly a niche build, or at least not considered one by many if this thread is anything to go by. Fighters and Champions are both classes with highlighted shield-blocking builds, and the availability of the general feat means other classes can dabble in it as well.
So where is the problem? The goal of the core book is to make sure people have the options they need to succeed - the Sturdy shield does that. No one needs multiple options in the core book to cater to their niche build. Those are a luxury, not a design issue.This seems a little uncharitable to me. Shield blocking is hardly a niche build, or at least not considered one by many if this thread is anything to go by. Fighters and Champions are both classes with highlighted shield-blocking builds, and the availability of the general feat means other classes can dabble in it as well.
There appears to be a perception that Shield Block is a significant class feature, as opposed to the minor mechanical benefit offered by a typical General Feat, which some classes receive as a free perk.
It can become a more significant class feature for fighters and champions with significant investment - and a Sturdy Shield addresses the need of these builds for a shield that can block multiple times and not break.
That's the exception, the niche. Not the general design paradigm and rule.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There appears to be a perception that Shield Block is a significant class feature, as opposed to the minor mechanical benefit offered by a typical General Feat, which some classes receive as a free perk.
That's just how you perceive shields, and how you are choosing to frame the conversation. Acting as though this is some unassailable truth makes productive dialogue extremely difficult.
Let me get this straight:
SIDE A:
Non-sturdy shields are too frail - sturdy is OK but getting the shield broken unless it's sturdy is unsatisfactory
SIDE B:
Non-sturdy shields are fine - sturdy is OK but getting the shiled broken unless it's sturdy is healthy for the game
Krispy is no more treating their own opinion as "unassailable truth" than most others on the forum do, so why the call out? It looks like trying to invalidate and dismiss the opinion instead of actually have a discussion.
If Krispy doesn't feel this is a truth, then I misjudged what they were saying preemptively apologise, and perhaps my chosen words were a little too harsh given the circumstance. However, many of their arguments seem to rest on the assumption that shield blocking is a minor or niche feature, an assumption I would call fairly controversial given this thread. I certainly disagree with it.
I'd also submit as support for my position that Shield Block is valued at "Exactly One General Feat".
One General feat is not a significant boost to character power level, and is certainly not character defining.
It is less of a class Feature than Attack of Opportunity, for example, that has a cost of a Class feat at best or multiclassing at worst.
Shield Block is by design a minor boost at its default level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me get this straight:
SIDE A:
Non-sturdy shields are too frail - sturdy is OK but getting the shieldbrokendestroyed unless it's sturdy is unsatisfactorySIDE B:
Non-sturdy shields are fine - sturdy is OK but getting the shiledbrokendestroyed unless it's sturdy is healthy for the game
Corrected it.
So far, the most recurring arguments for Side B are:
1) Non-sturdy shields are fine because some classes shouldn't use shields at all.
2) Non-sturdy shields are fine because you can choose not to block.
3) Non-sturdy shields are fine because blocking is a secondary mechanic that should only be allowed with a very specific item choice.
4) Non-sturdy shields are fine because CRB had limited space and thus other viable options for blocking couldn't fit.
5) Non-sturdy shields are fine because spending a reaction to block 6 damage once or twice per fight at level 18 without suffering an important wealth loss would be too much, unless you have that specific item.
Except, I'll say, that you can block the same damage at level 6, when that amount is much more meaningful, most of the times without destroying your non-sturdy shield.
Shield Block is valued at 1 general feat and the cost of the shield.
And many of the shields are very expensive for what they do.
Except that the strongly implied developer intent is that the cost of the shield should never be relevant.
The current design exists explicitly to create the real danger of a shield being destroyed by high damage, while leaving the player the agency to completely avoid that result by choosing not to block attacks that would have that result.
Shields are designed such that some attacks would break them if blocked, but you aren't supposed to block those attacks.
The Sturdy Shield is a specific item that creates an exception to that design.
Shield Block is valued at 1 general feat and the cost of the shield.
And many of the shields are very expensive for what they do.
Except that the strongly implied developer intent is that the cost of the shield should never be relevant.
The current design exists explicitly to create the real danger of a shield being destroyed by high damage, while leaving the player the agency to completely avoid that result by choosing not to block attacks that would have that result.
Shields are designed such that some attacks would break them if blocked, but you aren't supposed to block those attacks.
The Sturdy Shield is a specific item that creates an exception to that design.
Where is that developer intent strongly implied?
I've missed the last 200 or so posts, so maybe I missed some startling revelation, but as far as I know, when weighing the cost of an ability, you weigh all of the costs. I wasn't aware that Paizo had added a footnote somewhere that states that we shouldn't worry about the price tag on the shield you are contemplating shield blocking with.
If that was the case, there would be some ability or general rule that allowed a player to recoup the cost of a destroyed shield. As is, that does not exist to the best of my knowledge excepting only one or two specific shield and a Champion capstone ability.
Shield Block is valued at 1 general feat and the cost of the shield.
And many of the shields are very expensive for what they do.
Except that the strongly implied developer intent is that the cost of the shield should never be relevant.
The current design exists explicitly to create the real danger of a shield being destroyed by high damage, while leaving the player the agency to completely avoid that result by choosing not to block attacks that would have that result.
Shields are designed such that some attacks would break them if blocked, but you aren't supposed to block those attacks.
The Sturdy Shield is a specific item that creates an exception to that design.
Where is that developer intent strongly implied?
I've missed the last 200 or so posts, so maybe I missed some startling revelation, but as far as I know, when weighing the cost of an ability, you weigh all of the costs. I wasn't aware that Paizo had added a footnote somewhere that states that we shouldn't worry about the price tag on the shield you are contemplating shield blocking with.
If that was the case, there would be some ability or general rule that allowed a player to recoup the cost of a destroyed shield. As is, that does not exist to the best of my knowledge excepting only one or two specific shield and a Champion capstone ability.
There was a series of developer posts in a thread which is going to be difficult for me to look up on my phone, so I can go looking for it later. It was recently linked in a thread on the rules forum.
There was one post that explained why they went away from dents (so that shields could theoretically be destroyed in a single hit), and another which explained that since you know incoming damage before blocking you should never be losing a shield unless you choose to.
So... you aren't intended to block hits that would destroy your shield. Block hits that won't, and choose your shield accordingly (go Sturdy) if you want to block but hits are too big more often than you'd like.
I'd also submit as support for my position that Shield Block is valued at "Exactly One General Feat".
One General feat is not a significant boost to character power level, and is certainly not character defining.
It is less of a class Feature than Attack of Opportunity, for example, that has a cost of a Class feat at best or multiclassing at worst.
Shield Block is by design a minor boost at its default level.
The problem with that is that two classes have a lot of feats that build from the shield block foundation
but if you go with those feats and actually want something you get to choose: blowing LOTs of money, sacrificing hp for the shield or Sturdy Shield