|
I don't see what the problem with current shields are. In other editions, from what I remember seeing and playing, there was not even an option to let shields take additional damage aside from passive AC. Now, they allow damage to be absorbed by the shield that may not necessarily even break the damage threshold of the shield, but that could still be useful to a character. Players do not even have to use the shield block reaction, keeping the shield solely for the AC. Playing a sword and board fighter with shield block more than makes up for the difference in health die between the fighter and barbarian, and for squishier types without shields, the disparity in health reduction is just greater. Complaining that shields break when putting them in direct opposition to a blow just seems like a weird complaint with everything shields can do in this edition, especially when I have seen shield users use them to great effect with attacks that would have taken them down.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removing the ability for shields to ever be permanently destroyed in normal use, rather being rendered temporarily unusable but fixable, solves all of these problems.I recall Dents technically accomplished that function, but people basically revolted survey-wise against that - they wanted it to be possible for their shield to be destroyed in a single hit. If I'm correct, it was cited that no matter how big a hit your shield took, it was unrealistic that it couldn't be destroyed.
My solution would also help there. It's "destroyed" in the sense that it's rendered temporarily unusable, and takes more than a regular repair job to get back together, but isn't permanently obliterated from existence.
Say, you must spend part of your daily preparation time to fully repair it, limiting you to "destroying" your shield once per day.
The people who want one hit to potentially remove a shield from the the combat have it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what the problem with current shields are. In other editions, from what I remember seeing and playing, there was not even an option to let shields take additional damage aside from passive AC. Now, they allow damage to be absorbed by the shield that may not necessarily even break the damage threshold of the shield, but that could still be useful to a character. Players do not even have to use the shield block reaction, keeping the shield solely for the AC. Playing a sword and board fighter with shield block more than makes up for the difference in health die between the fighter and barbarian, and for squishier types without shields, the disparity in health reduction is just greater. Complaining that shields break when putting them in direct opposition to a blow just seems like a weird complaint with everything shields can do in this edition, especially when I have seen shield users use them to great effect with attacks that would have taken them down.
True:
Shields are a good optionShield blocking is useful
Shields, even without blocking, are still useful
Shields are different from 1st edition (don't even need to bring 1st edition up, since it's irrelevant)
Also true:
The current design of shields frequently leads to cases where a player must choose to take damage instead of the shield, or potentially lose a significant fraction of their wealth by level, which many people consider metagamey and weird.
Flavor it however you want, what it comes down to in actual play at actual tables is:
GM: "Okay, the troll hits you for 20 damage."
Player: "If I block now I could stay standing, but my brand new awesome shield I just bought will be gone forever."
Party: "Don't bother, we'll just heal you back up."
So *regularly* instead of "The troll slams down on your shield, breaking it, and gouging a deep claw mark into your arm and chest" it's "You see the damage piling up on your shield, and don't trust it to protect you. You try to take the hit on your armor instead, but the beast's might knocks you to the ground."
At some point it makes you wonder why they bothered to add shields breaking to the game if it almost never happens, and when it does it poisons an otherwise memorable moment with regret at permanently losing a big piece of your gear.
Removing the ability for shields to ever be permanently destroyed in normal use, rather being rendered temporarily unusable but fixable, solves all of these problems.I recall Dents technically accomplished that function, but people basically revolted survey-wise against that - they wanted it to be possible for their shield to be destroyed in a single hit. If I'm correct, it was cited that no matter how big a hit your shield took, it was unrealistic that it couldn't be destroyed.
People didn't like how it wasn't even possible for the Tarrasque to destroy even a mundane wooden shield held by a 1st-level Fighter in one hit (The Fighter himself? Sure. The shield over multiple hits? Yes. But not in one hit.). And with the whole spectrum between "it takes Saitama multiple Serious Punches to break a shield" and "an on-level opponent breaks an on-level shield by using harsh language", we ended up where we are, which is too close to the latter, IMO.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what the problem with current shields are. In other editions, from what I remember seeing and playing, there was not even an option to let shields take additional damage aside from passive AC. Now, they allow damage to be absorbed by the shield that may not necessarily even break the damage threshold of the shield, but that could still be useful to a character. Players do not even have to use the shield block reaction, keeping the shield solely for the AC. Playing a sword and board fighter with shield block more than makes up for the difference in health die between the fighter and barbarian, and for squishier types without shields, the disparity in health reduction is just greater. Complaining that shields break when putting them in direct opposition to a blow just seems like a weird complaint with everything shields can do in this edition, especially when I have seen shield users use them to great effect with attacks that would have taken them down.[clip]
True:Shields are different from 1st edition (don't even need to bring 1st edition up, since it's irrelevant)
I use the same house rule as WatersLethe, and I agree with them for the most part, but 1E is relevant in a thread titled "Second Ed vs First Ed."
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why add a system that makes things more realistic by modeling shields taking damage and breaking, but then remove the realism by having shield users regularly decide to take damage to their face instead of their shield, thus also greatly reducing the likelihood of shields ever breaking in play?
It gives the player control over the narrative, in that they can decide when the character is lucky and gets the shield in the way of the attack, when they aren't and don't, and when they are truly unfortunate and have their shield damaged to uselessness in a fight.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But 1E is relevant in a thread titled "Second Ed vs First Ed."
The reason people have problems with shields getting permanently destroyed in 2E has nothing to do with what shields did or did not do in 1E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For home game purposes just adding the dent system seems like a fine and easy to implement house rule. Personally I think I prefered dents but not enough to house rule it.
The shield getting outright destroyed can be a cool moment on paper, and is one that may often happen in the player's favor. A barbarian completely demolishing a soldier's shield is a cool visual. And this is just my own personal experience, but the only players that have seemed averse to a shield being destroyed are the ones who specifically built around them. For a casual dabbler, the shield is just one more item with a limited shelf life. The f
The ones that remain viable at higher levels just shouldn't be used for blocking in the first place. Again, just my own experience there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why add a system that makes things more realistic by modeling shields taking damage and breaking, but then remove the realism by having shield users regularly decide to take damage to their face instead of their shield, thus also greatly reducing the likelihood of shields ever breaking in play?It gives the player control over the narrative, in that they can decide when the character is lucky and gets the shield in the way of the attack, when they aren't and don't, and when they are truly unfortunate and have their shield damaged to uselessness in a fight.
I will note that a character willingly sacrificing a piece of equipment or even a piece of their body to avoid an attack has a lot of fictional examples.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big disconnect comes from the fact that 2E operates opposite to how you expect the fiction to work in this regard.
Fiction: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... I have no choice but to sacrifice my trusty shield if I want to remain standing"
2E: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... Now is the time to intentionally not block with my shield, taking the attack head on and dropping unconscious. Falling in combat is just a temporary setback, while losing my shield would be near-permanent damage"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I just feel that blocking a big attack with your shield and barely hanging on is a great cinematic moment and feels good as a player to do - therefore I think the game is in error when it punishes this exact behavior.
I will add that I have no personal gripe with knowing the damage before blocking, just with permanent shield destruction (and magic item destruction in general).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the big disconnect comes from the fact that 2E operates opposite to how you expect the fiction to work in this regard.
Fiction: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... I have no choice but to sacrifice my trusty shield if I want to remain standing"
2E: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... Now is the time to intentionally not block with my shield, taking the attack head on and dropping unconscious. Falling in combat is just a temporary setback, while losing my shield would be near-permanent damage"
Yes, and also combine that dichotomy with the fact that armor never takes damage, no matter how many hits it takes, and weapons take no damage either, even if it's a wooden weapon smashing a metal shield to bits. In fact, there are no rules for any of your equipment being damaged or destroyed, even from multiple Fireballs, or when swallowed by a purple worm. Your wizard robes, backpack, and 50' rope will survive it all, just don't ever try to use your shield to block (it's intended purpose)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather take the big attack on the shield, letting it break, fight out the rest of the encounter, repair it in the 10 minute recharge, and then repeat. The only problem is if the damage would reduce it to the destroyed threshold immediately, but I'm not sure that happens that often?
I see shields as being there to soften a big attack once a fight or so.
Smilodon is confused by this statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure how having the choice is punishing over it just happening without a choice on the players part.
Again, the only thing I really care about here is permanent magic item destruction, which I don't think should be a thing in the game. If shields could be destroyed without player input, I'd think that was an even bigger problem than what we currently have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure how having the choice is punishing over it just happening without a choice on the players part.Again, the only thing I really care about here is permanent magic item destruction, which I don't think should be a thing in the game. If shields could be destroyed without player input, I'd think that was an even bigger problem than what we currently have.
Personally I'm ok with permanent destruction as a concept. Equipment destruction is one of the few ways to actually make players sweat. And I don't think it is that unbalancing. Equipment gets replaced with greater versions, or +1 items get replaced by +2 items.
It also a really easy thing to correct for if it is a problem: just put an even better shield in the next loot drop. It may feel a little too convenient, but PF2 explicitly encourages replacing magic items with things useful to your party.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and also combine that dichotomy with the fact that armor never takes damage, no matter how many hits it takes, and weapons take no damage either, even if it's a wooden weapon smashing a metal shield to bits. In fact, there are no rules for any of your equipment being damaged or destroyed, even from multiple Fireballs, or when swallowed by a purple worm. Your wizard robes, backpack, and 50' rope will survive it all, just don't ever try to use your shield to block (it's intended purpose)...I think the big disconnect comes from the fact that 2E operates opposite to how you expect the fiction to work in this regard.
Fiction: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... I have no choice but to sacrifice my trusty shield if I want to remain standing"
2E: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... Now is the time to intentionally not block with my shield, taking the attack head on and dropping unconscious. Falling in combat is just a temporary setback, while losing my shield would be near-permanent damage"
Its intended purpose is actually Raise Shield, Shield Block is a bonus. Note that when you try and push other things past their base purpose (Sacrifice Armour on Sentinel/Champion), they also take damage and become broken/destroyed.
Shield Block is simply a significantly more accessible way of offloading a large chunk of damage that would normally be applied to your face to your shield instead, that most classes don't even get by default.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much of the shield problem we could solve by making destroyed shields salvageable (possibly in downtime) without a significant GP expense.
Since "you can't use your cool magic shield until you get back to town" seems less punitive than "that's some money wasted."
Has destroyed shields that are expensive been a big problem for people in play? In the games I run, people are usually wanting to upgrade their shields when it even gets close to being a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much of the shield problem we could solve by making destroyed shields salvageable (possibly in downtime) without a significant GP expense.
Since "you can't use your cool magic shield until you get back to town" seems less punitive than "that's some money wasted."
I like this a lot because not only does it have reasonable consequence without becoming a wealth issue but it also requires you win at least in part or you couldn’t collect the shield.
I’ll probably yoink this too. Not being able to use your shield for the rest of the day and say a several days of downtime at least makes it a plausible option when the chips are really down.
Has destroyed shields that are expensive been a big problem for people in play? In the games I run, people are usually wanting to upgrade their shields when it even gets close to being a problem.
How does one upgrade a shield, outside of selling it and buying a better one?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has destroyed shields that are expensive been a big problem for people in play? In the games I run, people are usually wanting to upgrade their shields when it even gets close to being a problem.How does one upgrade a shield, outside of selling it and buying a better one?
As part of Errata 2.0, items are upgradable with crafting.
Page 535: Craft Requirements. Add text about upgrading an item from a lower-level version into a higher-level version. "The GM might allow you to Craft a permanent item from a lower-level version of the same item as an upgrade. For example, you might upgrade a bag of holding from a type I to a type II bag, but you couldn’t upgrade a clear spindle aeon stone into an orange prism aeon stone. The cost for this upgrade is the full difference in Price between the items, and the Crafting check uses a DC for the item’s new level."
Has destroyed shields that are expensive been a big problem for people in play? In the games I run, people are usually wanting to upgrade their shields when it even gets close to being a problem.How does one upgrade a shield, outside of selling it and buying a better one?As part of Errata 2.0, items are upgradable with crafting.
Page 535: Craft Requirements. Add text about upgrading an item from a lower-level version into a higher-level version. "The GM might allow you to Craft a permanent item from a lower-level version of the same item as an upgrade. For example, you might upgrade a bag of holding from a type I to a type II bag, but you couldn’t upgrade a clear spindle aeon stone into an orange prism aeon stone. The cost for this upgrade is the full difference in Price between the items, and the Crafting check uses a DC for the item’s new level."
What I have seen is players happily get a new shield they are excited about and pass of their old shield as well, or just hold on to the old shield as a back up/situational shield, if it has a special power. I just haven’t seen a lot of shields get completely destroyed. Actually I haven’t even seen one get destroyed. I haven’t played a whole lot of level 15+ play either, which is where I imagine this situation arises most often, but by that point in a characters career they can afford to either carry multiple shields or soon have ways repair them them magically, especially if this is a big part of their character build they have been using for 15 levels.
Maybe it is a problem in high level one off adventures? With players who built a character they didn’t play up to that level? This seems like a common situation where players really struggle, not just with shields but also spells.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and also combine that dichotomy with the fact that armor never takes damage, no matter how many hits it takes, and weapons take no damage either, even if it's a wooden weapon smashing a metal shield to bits. In fact, there are no rules for any of your equipment being damaged or destroyed, even from multiple Fireballs, or when swallowed by a purple worm. Your wizard robes, backpack, and 50' rope will survive it all, just don't ever try to use your shield to block (it's intended purpose)...I think the big disconnect comes from the fact that 2E operates opposite to how you expect the fiction to work in this regard.
Fiction: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... I have no choice but to sacrifice my trusty shield if I want to remain standing"
2E: "It seems my foe is coming in for a devastating attack... Now is the time to intentionally not block with my shield, taking the attack head on and dropping unconscious. Falling in combat is just a temporary setback, while losing my shield would be near-permanent damage"
The Corrosive rune begs to differ.
Corrosive
Item 8+
Acid
Conjuration
Magical
Source Core Rulebook pg. 583 2.0
Usage etched onto a weapon
Acid sizzles across the surface of the weapon. When you hit with the weapon, add 1d6 acid damage to the damage dealt. In addition, on a critical hit, the target’s armor (if any) takes 3d6 acid damage (before applying Hardness); if the target has a shield raised, the shield takes this damage instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much of the shield problem we could solve by making destroyed shields salvageable (possibly in downtime) without a significant GP expense.
Since "you can't use your cool magic shield until you get back to town" seems less punitive than "that's some money wasted."
Incidentally, this is basically how I run things at my table. A destroyed magic item counts as 90% of the destroyed item's value in materials - so it can be remade with crafting/paying an NPC for a reforge. This has the added bonus of making crafting a more generally useful skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, this is basically how I run things at my table. A destroyed magic item counts as 90% of the destroyed item's value in materials - so it can be remade with crafting/paying an NPC for a reforge. This has the added bonus of making crafting a more generally useful skill.I wonder how much of the shield problem we could solve by making destroyed shields salvageable (possibly in downtime) without a significant GP expense.
Since "you can't use your cool magic shield until you get back to town" seems less punitive than "that's some money wasted."
As a player, I would be 100% willing to "destroy" my shield if it meant my party would be left standing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, I have seen armor get destroyed by acid damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah! The good old fashioned complains about shield blocks in PF2! We always have this backing from time to time here in forum. 🤣
I will be honest. I love PF2! I love how the rules and mechanics is usually well balanced, interesting and fun. Except the Shield Block!
I'm not saying there not other questionable rules and mechanics, but none of it come to the level of shield block. IMO this is most strange, bugged and non-sense rule.
The problems of shield block remounts as since the sunder removal, the shield (and wands) are the only piece of equipment easily breakable. First when the dent rules was purposed the main complains was "why a 'weak' level 1 foe has the same damage to my shield as a 20+ creature like the Tarrasque?". Só after the core rules officially launched some people noticed that the shield is now easily breakable from not just a great damage, but now from any, but from any foe that has a good damage, no mater the origin, can be a heavy axe from a strong barbarian or a rogue with a light crossbow, they both can easily take down your shield if you try to block it.
This afraided many players that realizes that they can lost their shield in an unfortunate block a high damage attack so Mark comes help saying something like "don't worry guys, you can choose to block after know the damage, so your shields are safe" and we changed from afraid to a strange metagame and buggy rules.
The main problem with the shield are in the early game (lvl 1-4) because the shields have low BT. Once the shields is far way hardily to repair and cannot be repaired during a combat the shields HP becomes far valuable than the players HP! If your shield has a chance to be broken because the damage is too high almost every one will prefer to take the damage than block it, even this take down them to a dying state because you can easily recover from death if someone heals you, but no one can recover you shield if it broken for the rest of the combat at last.
The other anomaly cause by this is the fact that the shield player almost only will receive high damages and ignore the low ones. Once that any damage bellow the hardness of the shield will be almost always chose to be completely blocked while the most high ones will be choose to not be blocked to prevent shield damages.
The other buggy mechanic is the resistances that once the shield hardness reduce the damage after you know it, it also receives any physical resistances the shield player has. Só imagine if you are a barbarian or a cosmic oracle with some kind of physical resistance, you now reduces the damage before block it and your shield will take less to no damage because of it, no matter how is the origin os your resistance, your shield will benefit from it while is you using it to block.
I also disagree if argument that "Shield Block is a bonus". The block is not just a bonus, is one of the main rules used in PF2 to protect you and even the others once that the overall AC is lower than 1E and the overall attack bonus provided by proficiency is grater. And more, some classes like champions directly depends on it, many of their feats and based in shield blocks, and is hard for a good champion to chose to break it's weak shield to protect an innocent to avoid make an anathema.
All this could be easily solved if we change the choice of block to before know the damage, make the shield virtually indestructible (remove the BT and make the shield broken only when it's HP goes to 0, making it only be destroyed by disintegrate or dismantle) and change the mending magic to work like a heal, allowing the repair during combat (with able something like 2 actions to do a distant repair and removal of bulk and magic item restriction). This way the shield HP will no more has more value than a living character's HP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me knowing the damage/result beforehand is the whole point of reactionary abilities. Reactions that force you to risk wasting valuable actions beforehand simply aren't worth taking. Frankly, I wish MORE reactions worked like Shield Block.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me knowing the damage/result beforehand is the whe point of reactionary abilities. Abilities that force you to risk wasting valuable actions beforehand simply aren't worth taking. Frankly, I wish MORE reactions worked like Shield Block.
But there's no risk! You always know if your shield will broke or not. If the damage will not broke your shield you will choose to block! If not you will not block! Simple that!
Fortunately the most reactions don't work like "you receive the damage" but "someone is hit by an attack" and avoid all this problem.
For me knowing the damage/result beforehand is the whe point of reactionary abilities. Abilities that force you to risk wasting valuable actions beforehand simply aren't worth taking. Frankly, I wish MORE reactions worked like Shield Block.But there's no risk! You always know if your shield will broke or not. If the damage will not broke your shield you will choose to block! If not you will not block! Simple that!
Fortunately the most reactions don't work like "you receive the damage" but "someone is hit by an attack" and avoid all this problem.
You misunderstood RavingDork's point.
He is saying he's glad the Shield Block reaction works as it does (as you described) because otherwise you wouldn't know how much damage you're taking and thus liable to destroy your shield.
With the current rules, it's a player choice to allow your shield to take damage/be destroyed.
All of which, was in response to another poster saying they got rid of that facet of the reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the current rules, it's a player choice to allow your shield to take damage/be destroyed.
I understand what he said. And my reply still same, it's not a question of choice, neither or risk. Anyone will choose to block until risks the shield be broken, then stop to block any damage that will broke the shield and starts to block only low damages inferior to hardness.
In 99% of cases don't worth to do anything different from this! The only situation I can imagine that someone would broke it shield is if there's no healer and you will die from the attack.
And we back to situation where a char or leave only high damages, or receive no damage from an attack at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the shield thing ultimately boils down to "shields are very expensive consumables" and some people just dislike spending considerable money on consumables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No that all applies to what you would do. Not what everyone would do. I've seen people block until their shield breaks and then swap to 2 handed grip on their bastard sword. I've seen people carry several lower level shields (if you had a feat that was just "Reaction: When attacked gain 5HP, if the attack deals more than 15 damage you cannot use this reaction again for ten minutes" you'd probably think that isn't too bad.It's a risk and unusual set. You loose an action to remove the shield and other to put your second hand in the sword. But I admit it's a possible way to do.
But carry several shields is a thing that usually very low effective. Switch shield during a combat, specially when you are carrying a weapon in other hand is very action waste operation:
Action 1: sheathe the weapon to allow use your hand for the next action
Action 2: Release the shield from your arm.
Action 3: Take the shield you are carrying from your back.
Action 4: attach the shield to the arm
Action 5: draw your weapon again.This simply is not too practical, and do this for between combats maybe unnecessary expensive if you can take 10 minutes repairing the shield.
There's no way to reduce that action cost? I'd expect a dedicated shield user to have feats that allow for quick donning.
You can quick draw and attack but ironically this is a Ranger/Rogue feat. Until now I don't know why fighter was excluded from this. But just reduce 1 action.
I don't see any feat that allow you to change shields faster.
I far easier to change shields for casters!
300 shields if Legendary.
Go to a big city at war and open a workshop! You maybe become rich! kkkk
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feats for changing shields? The Viking archetype has that. It doesn't seem to be written with the idea that the "all shields must be strapped" reading of the action economy above is correct.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2098
Second Shield Free Action
Feat 6
Archetype
Source Advanced Player's Guide pg. 198
Archetype Viking
Prerequisites Viking DedicationTrigger Your Shield Block causes your shield to break or be destroyed.
You're used to your shield breaking in the middle of battle, and you're prepared to use a backup or any convenient nearby object to defend yourself. You can Interact to draw a shield on your person or an unattended shield within your reach. If there is an object within your reach that could serve as an improvised shield—for example, a table or chair— you can Interact to draw it with this feat. The GM determines if something can be used as an improvised shield. Your new shield isn't raised until you use the Raise a Shield action, as normal
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or Sturdy Shield is the magic item for those who want to use shield block and the other magic shields are for all the other shield users.
Considering that every shield in the playtest could be competently used to block whether Sturdy or not, I'd have to call that an accidental artifact of the final draft of the rules over anything intentional.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feats for changing shields? The Viking archetype has that. It doesn't seem to be written with the idea that the "all shields must be strapped" reading of the action economy above is correct.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2098
Second Shield Free Action
Feat 6
Archetype
Source Advanced Player's Guide pg. 198
Archetype Viking
Prerequisites Viking DedicationTrigger Your Shield Block causes your shield to break or be destroyed.
You're used to your shield breaking in the middle of battle, and you're prepared to use a backup or any convenient nearby object to defend yourself. You can Interact to draw a shield on your person or an unattended shield within your reach. If there is an object within your reach that could serve as an improvised shield—for example, a table or chair— you can Interact to draw it with this feat. The GM determines if something can be used as an improvised shield. Your new shield isn't raised until you use the Raise a Shield action, as normal
Own! A feat 6 archetype...
I still prefer a good Sturdy Shield in this level. :P
Or Sturdy Shield is the magic item for those who want to use shield block and the other magic shields are for all the other shield users.Considering that every shield in the playtest could be competently used to block whether Sturdy or not, I'd have to call that an accidental artifact of the final draft of the rules over anything intentional.
Yeah. The dent in playtest easily may explain why the most magical shields are so weak compared to sturdy.
IMO I still think that the designers still could do a rune systems for shields. Even with the current errata 2 helping to upgrade the Sturdy, still hard for many others magical shield to be interesting to those who use many blocks strategy.|
|
Here are the basics of my homebrew rule...
My champion with Shield Ally, Everstand Stance, Shield Warden, Quick Block, Shield of Reckoning, master Fortitude, and a moderate sturdy shield would love those rules. The shield is already hardness 17 with 156hp. and two reactions available for the shield block. Throw a dedicated healer in the party (as ours has) and damage mitigation is almost a secondary concern.
|
|
If you don't get to know the damage...
As long as I can decide to shield block after I know its a successful hit, but before damage is rolled, I'm fine with it. You'll know if its a crit so you'll know if there is a risk of the shield being destroyed outright and you won't "waste" the block on a miss. Granted I prefer to know the exact damage as it makes the decision even more informed, but if a GM rules otherwise, I would be okay with it.
If OTOH, the GM required me to declare the block before the attack roll, I would object as it would waste a valuable limited resource (reactions). Its the reason why I despise that a rogue's nimble dodge has to be declared before the attack and possible wasted.