Hi all, has there been any ruling on this feat and the hardness of shields?
I searched the forums and only found 2 threads without a clear answer and someone asking in another thread if this works, but he/she never got a reply.
I am planning on making a Dwarf Fighter for an upcoming Ruby Phoenix Tournament game and want to know if this will help my shield survive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarven Reinforcement doesn't apply to shields, since they are not "thick objects and structures".
This has been discussed before. It works on doors and buildings, but shields are classified as "thin objects", so no go on that one.
The best shields for shield block are sturdy shields. But against high-level adversaries, you may have to purposefully forego shield blocking, unless you have backup shield(s).
I know Emblazon Armament is option for Clerics/Multiclass.
But thankfully in P2E damage is alot more dice based compared to flat bonus based.
So even when the average damage (never mind above average) may be detrimental to your Shield,
there will still be plenty of attacks where it ends up rolling below average damage (this can happen even with Crits),
so those are the ones that are most efficient to block without eating up your Shield too much/quickly.
Which IMHO makes sense for average/lower damage to be most easily absorbed, while damage spikes are most dangerous. YMMV
But if you expect that you won't always be Blocking even when you Raised, you might want some more Reactions besides Block.
Dwarven Reinforcement doesn't apply to shields, since they are not "thick objects and structures".
This has been discussed before. It works on doors and buildings, but shields are classified as "thin objects", so no go on that one.
The best shields for shield block are sturdy shields. But against high-level adversaries, you may have to purposefully forego shield blocking, unless you have backup shield(s).
Cool thanks. Will give this feat a skip then.
I looked into other threads, but didnt really see a clear answer. I guess this is the kind of feat for when you have an actual fort, like in Ashes.
I know Emblazon Armament is option for Clerics/Multiclass.
But thankfully in P2E damage is alot more dice based compared to flat bonus based.
So even when the average damage (never mind above average) may be detrimental to your Shield,
there will still be plenty of attacks where it ends up rolling below average damage (this can happen even with Crits),
so those are the ones that are most efficient to block without eating up your Shield too much/quickly.
Which IMHO makes sense for average/lower damage to be most easily absorbed, while damage spikes are most dangerous. YMMVBut if you expect that you won't always be Blocking even when you Raised, you might want some more Reactions besides Block.
Thanks for the tip.
|
For the record, I disagree with Wheldrake so it's really not cut and dry on this, what they're expressing is an OPINION, much like my own.
Improving the Hardness of a Shield is LITERALLY the only useful thing you can do with that feature and in my opinion, any GM who would poo-poo on this is effectively saying that feat does nothing of value at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Btw, here's the reference Wheldrake is quoting about shields being thin objects:
Table 11–4 below provides the Hardness, Hit Points, Broken Threshold, and example items for some types of common materials. The table has separate entries for thin items (like shields), ordinary items (like armor), and reinforced or durable structures (such as walls).
|
|
Btw, here's the reference Wheldrake is quoting about shields being thin objects:
Table 11–4 below provides the Hardness, Hit Points, Broken Threshold, and example items for some types of common materials. The table has separate entries for thin items (like shields), ordinary items (like armor), and reinforced or durable structures (such as walls).
I don't buy it, the rules also state that individual playing cards and an Palm Crossbow, and Alchemist Goggles are "thick" objects.
DR, in my opinion, does not actually relate to thick OR thin objects at all those are "flavor words" meant to communicate the intent. Even the example it gives is reinforcing glass windows and I don't know ANYONE who would say that a pane of glass is thicker than a wooden and steel riveted shield.
The only possible reason I can think of to justify saying Shields are "thin" is as a balance measure to ensure nobody who wants a Shield with Special Materials is overtly punished by having to pay way more than they should for almost no benefit whatsoever. That said... I suppose the RAW is the RAW here and you're right, it says what it does, I don't agree with it but yeah, I guess so. :\
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I was just providing the reference, since it was missing. I'm not weighing in on the issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I disagree with Wheldrake so it's really not cut and dry on this, what they're expressing is an OPINION, much like my own.
Improving the Hardness of a Shield is LITERALLY the only useful thing you can do with that feature and in my opinion, any GM who would poo-poo on this is effectively saying that feat does nothing of value at all.
Yes it would be a useful thing to do with this feat. I'd certainly prefer it if it did. I'm just not seeing much of an angle on the rules outside of GM interpretation to alllow it to work that way. I'm not that keen on putting in feats in the game which aren't much use to adventuring parties and this seems to be in that category.
Shields are "thin", and Dwarven Reinforcement is clearly about "thick objects and structures". The flavour text is on structures. It very much seems as if it is stuck in the realm of larger scale engineering.
Perhaps you could argue "thick" is not a well defined trait. It certainly sounds like it has been inconsistently applied. It is just if I can reinterpret this, then the rest of the game world just collapses into an undefined mess of uncertainty
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy it, the rules also state that individual playing cards and an Palm Crossbow, and Alchemist Goggles are "thick" objects.
Really? Where? I'm not seeing it in those links you pasted.
DR, in my opinion, does not actually relate to thick OR thin objects at all those are "flavor words" meant to communicate the intent.
Hey, you're certainly entitled to share your opinion, or even modify the Dwarven Reinforcement feat in your home games if you like.
But PF2 is a game system built on keywords. Thick and thin objects are defined, and a shield is listed as a thin object. Hence making the Dwarven Reinforcement feat inapplicable in the case of shields, according to the RAW.
This is a rules forum, so I tried to answer the OP with the applicable rule. Not with just an opinion, mind.
BTW, thanks for the reference, Aw3som3, that is indeed exactly what I was thinking about in answering the OP.
Just to point out that thick and thin are not defined and are not keywords.
That property is described and assigned by the table more than anything else.
Just to point out that thick and thin are not defined and are not keywords.
That property is described and assigned by the table more than anything else.
The game gives multiple examples of thin objects on the chart:
Thin cloth: Kite, silk dress, undershirtThin glass: Bottle, spectacles, window pane
Thin leather: Backpack, jacket, pouch, strap, whip
Thin wood: Chair, club, sapling, wooden shield
Thin rope: Standard adventuring rope
Thin stone: Chalkboard, slate tiles, stone cladding
Thin iron or steel: Chain, steel shield, sword
You can quibble what thick is but thin seems PRETTY well illustrated: this especially true of shields as they are listed multiple times as thin: Under this iron/steel, thin wood, and the description of section. IMO, calling out shields as thin should be enough to be confident that they do not qualify as "thick objects and structures": You don't need keywords to figure out thin items aren't thick ones even if you aren't sure what a thick item is.
Just to point out that thick and thin are not defined and are not keywords.
That property is described and assigned by the table more than anything else.
It is defined in that table.
As Graystone pointed out, there is no ambiguity in the interpretation that shields are classified as "thin " objects.So, per the RAW, Dwarven Reinforcement doesn't apply to shields.
Unless you choose to homebrew a different interperetation. But this is the rules forum, hence my answers.