Shield Proficiency

[Ed Reppert]

Looking through the CRB, I can't find a reference to proficiency for shields. Does such a thing exist? Is it subsumed in something else, like one of the armor or weapon proficiencies? If so, I missed it. :-(

[Perpdepog]

If you mean proficiency as in requiring something to use shields at all, then there isn't any. Any class can wield a shield and can also take the Raise a Shield action.

If you're asking if there are any actions gated behind proficiency or anything like that, then the answer is still no, but what you're probably thinking of/looking for is the Shield Block feat, which some classes, notably the chonkier frontline types like Champion and Fighter, get for free, though any class is free to take the feat whenever they could select a general feat.

[Nefreet]

I actually can't tell from the original post if he means "weapon proficiency" or not. So, just in case he does:

Anybody can Strike with a Shield Bash, Shield Boss or Shield Spikes, but if you're not at least Trained in Martial Weapons, your Attack Bonus is not going to be great.

Raise a Shield is an Action anyone can take.

Shield Block is a Feat.

[Ed Reppert]

Well, I suppose at heart the question is whether a shield is a weapon, or armor, or neither, or both, or "it depends on what you're doing with it".

Following Nefreet, it seems that the last option is correct. When you're attacking with a shield, it's a weapon, and martial weapon proficiency applies. If you're raising your shield, it adds a circumstance bonus to your armor class, and your armor proficiency for whatever armor you're also wearing (i.e., unarmored, light armor, etc.) applies. If you're using shield block, it's neither weapon nor armor and no proficiency applies.

[Guntermench]

A shield is never a weapon, but it can be used as a martial one, similarly to unarmed. Or you can put attachments on that are very much weapons.

When you use it to attack you use your martial weapon proficiency, but it's still not a weapon because you can't put runes on it. When you raise a shield your armour proficiency is irrelevant for the shield, it's just a circumstance bonus. When you shield block your proficiency is again irrelevant it just matters that you have the reaction at all.

The easiest solution to "what is a shield" is to look at Chapter 6 of the CRB. Shields have their own section, they aren't under Armour and while they do have an entry under Weapons that entry expressly says that it's not a weapon. So the answer is neither.

[breithauptclan]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Well, I suppose at heart the question is whether a shield is a weapon, or armor, or neither, or both, or "it depends on what you're doing with it".

Following Nefreet, it seems that the last option is correct. When you're attacking with a shield, it's a weapon, and martial weapon proficiency applies. If you're raising your shield, it adds a circumstance bonus to your armor class, and your armor proficiency for whatever armor you're also wearing (i.e., unarmored, light armor, etc.) applies. If you're using shield block, it's neither weapon nor armor and no proficiency applies.

Pretty much, yes.

A shield is not a weapon.

Shield Bash is not really a weapon, though the maneuver behaves like a weapon just like an unarmed attack behaves a lot like a weapon. Shield Bash uses Martial weapon proficiency.

A Shield can have a weapon attached to it - such as shield spikes. The shield spikes are a weapon.

It is debatable if a shield with an attached weapon can be used for things that require a weapon such as Quick Draw. Because the shield is not a weapon, but the shield spikes are.

Using a shield does not require any proficiency. It is also not armor. Monks and other characters that get benefits when 'unarmored' can exploit this.

Using Shield Block requires having the Shield Block action available. Either through a class feature or the general feat. And there is still no proficiency needed. Nothing is rolled on the defender's side either.

[Ed Reppert]

harnmaster is so much simpler - and so much more common sensical. :-)

[Blake's Tiger]

Ed Reppert wrote:

harnmaster is so much simpler - and so much more common sensical. :-)

ROFL

[Baarogue]

I dunno if "exploit" is the word I'd used when describing unarmored classes using a shield. I'm creating a "turtle stance" monk right now just to see how munchkin I can be and only by maxing Dex (i.e., forgoing max Str, which I am not going to do) can he beat a fighter's AC at character creation and that's only because heavy armor costs so much. Once the fighter can buy heavy, (or if they go broke at level 1 buying splint) they're equal when raising a shield and the fighter can do that as a reaction if they take Reactive Shield. The monk has enough action economy to raise and take cover behind a tower shield while still using Flurry of Blows but that's their only "advantage," and they have to buy Shield Block while four other classes get it for free

There's a balancing act in the shield rules. I think shields were pretty well written to allow max utility at minimum hassle while still avoiding a lot of cheese

[Nefreet]

Don't take Shield Block. Tower Shields can't take the hits.

I've GMed for a handful of Dex-based, Tower Shield Monks and they're hard enough to hit that you'll virtually never need Shield Block anyways.

[HumbleGamer]

Tower shield Monk has enough actions to make it work ( flurry, raise shield, take cover).

The Major issue is not being able to use stuff like stand still or AoO, because you'll lose your cover.

Personally, given the high speed the monk has, unless they are required to play as tank, I'd always prefer to play them hit and run.

Shield block is good, but depends the length of your fight and the party composition, it may require a great investment in terms of feats and consumables.

After all, the difference between a sword and board fighter and a another sword and board fighter with:

- divine ally shield
- everstand stance
- dwarven reinforcement
- emblazon armament

Is somehow incommensurable.

Especially if the fights last more than 4/5 rounds ( at my table, playing normal AP with a 5 members party, the fights tend to always last at least 5 rounds, up to 12 ).

[Baarogue]

Yeah, I was just interested in seeing if their expert unarmored proficiency was comparable to fighters beginning with expert weapon proficiencies and found it only makes monks exactly on par with an armored frontliner so... no. In the process I learned a lot about armor and shields and gained even more respect for how me-proof the core systems are lol

I'm still going to play it out to see how I think about it, and I do plan to take Shield Block for little hits that can be soaked by the hardness. By the time I have more to do than just stand there and take it I'll have access to the sturdy shield and upgrade to that if I'm still happy with the style

[Ascalaphus]

To be precise, monk unarmored proficiency makes them on par with heavy armor frontliners. A dex monk will actually be ahead of rogues, rangers, inventors, investigators, magi, barbarians, thaumaturges, war priests and some other frontliners I'm probably forgetting. A strength monk will be on par with those but a point behind the best.

In the longer run, the monk is the only class able to compete with the champion and fighter for best AC progression. (Champion because of the high armor proficiency, fighter because their action economy feats for shields are especially good.)

[Themetricsystem]

Ed Reppert wrote:

harnmaster is so much simpler - and so much more common sensical. :-)

Thank you, I needed a good spit take today, my keyboard hasn't had a good coffee bath in a long time.

[breithauptclan]

Baarogue wrote:

I dunno if "exploit" is the word I'd used when describing unarmored classes using a shield.

Not trying to say that it is a balance problem or that GMs should be houseruling that it doesn't work.

Maybe 'utilize' would be a better word?

Quote:

Using a shield does not require any proficiency. It is also not armor. Monks and other characters that get benefits when 'unarmored' can utilize this.

[Hobbun]

Guntermench wrote:

A shield is never a weapon, but it can be used as a martial one, similarly to unarmed. Or you can put attachments on that are very much weapons.

When you use it to attack you use your martial weapon proficiency, but it's still not a weapon because you can't put runes on it. When you raise a shield your armour proficiency is irrelevant for the shield, it's just a circumstance bonus. When you shield block your proficiency is again irrelevant it just matters that you have the reaction at all.

The easiest solution to "what is a shield" is to look at Chapter 6 of the CRB. Shields have their own section, they aren't under Armour and while they do have an entry under Weapons that entry expressly says that it's not a weapon. So the answer is neither.

I actually just started up playing 2e again, my only experience previously was the playtest a few years ago. Created a Champion for PFS and have only played one scenario and so far it's been enjoyable.

I do use a shield with him, and really don't plan to be offensive with it, but have to say I'm not too happy with how limited shields seem to be for attacking purposes.

There were some great builds in 1e that used shields offensively and it's a shame that it seems, at least right now, we won't see that in 2e. First and foremost in not being able to put runes on shields offensively. I really liked in 1e that you could do both (enchant them with AC and attack/damage bonuses). It would cost you double the amount, but at least you had the option and was important to have that option if you had a build that attacked often with a shield.

So where this is only a small aspect of 2e, can't say I am too happy with this limitation and likely will won't have a build where I attack with a shield. At least how it stands now.

[breithauptclan]

What you are probably looking for is Shield Augmentation, or even more likely an attached weapon like Shield Spike or Shield Boss.

All of those can be etched with runes and turn a shield into a rather useful offensive weapon.

[Hobbun]

Oh, ok. That works, as long as there are options to put runes on it down the road.

Thank you.