I'm building a fighter. However, with the character concept I have in mind, I will never, under any circumstances, use a shield. How can I trade this ability that is useless to me for something else?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2nd edition doesn't have a lot of ways to eliminate class features that you don't want like Pathfinder 1e did. The way the rules are structured to do this is with class archetypes but there are few of those and none apply to the fighter.
Normally fighters who plan to use 2 handed weapons or a free hand or two weapon fighting just shrug and say "well, it's only a first level general feat so it's not really a big part of the power budget" and write it down on the character sheet and never use it.
Pathfinder 2nd edition doesn't have a lot of ways to eliminate class features that you don't want like Pathfinder 1e did. The way the rules are structured to do this is with class archetypes but there are few of those and none apply to the fighter.
Normally fighters who plan to use 2 handed weapons or a free hand or two weapon fighting just shrug and say "well, it's only a first level general feat so it's not really a big part of the power budget" and write it down on the character sheet and never use it.
This agitates my ocd greatly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if this helps, but since anyone can use shields in 2e, shield block us functionally the same as shield proficiency from past generations. Much like how you may not need all the proficiencies for the weapons you don't use, you have shield "proficiency" whether you use it or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, a big difference between the 1 Fighter and the 2e Fighter is that the 1e Fighter was sort of designed to hyperspecialize in one weapon group, while the 2e fighter ends up as someone who is especially good with one group, but is extremely competent with anything they would pick up.
So while you may prefer to use a halberd or a bow, and you take feats that apply to those weapons, you can still pick up a longsword and a shield or two whips and be really good with them. Particularly since feats in general are not "power boosts" but "additional options."
This agitates my ocd greatly.Pathfinder 2nd edition doesn't have a lot of ways to eliminate class features that you don't want like Pathfinder 1e did. The way the rules are structured to do this is with class archetypes but there are few of those and none apply to the fighter.
Normally fighters who plan to use 2 handed weapons or a free hand or two weapon fighting just shrug and say "well, it's only a first level general feat so it's not really a big part of the power budget" and write it down on the character sheet and never use it.
This is not PF1 - you can't trade away every individual element. You are stuck with the core of your ancestry, and the skeleton of your class. You can pick and choose the rest but not these.
That still leaves you with a huge amount of build flexibility, but no you can't forget how to use a shield.
One more issue that will trigger you is that you can't start with an 18 unless it is the primary attribute of your class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to be "fighting person" without Shield Block the Ranger, Barbarian, and Swashbuckler all work fine and don't have too much thematic baggage. The monk, rogue, and gunslinger work if you are okay with their thematic baggage. Pretty much all the martials in this game are good!
The main appeal of the fighter class is "you have +2 to hit versus the other martials" but in getting that you end up with the thematics of "someone who is professionally invested in being really good at using weapons, not just one weapon but all the ways one could pick up something and fight with it."
This agitates my ocd greatly.Pathfinder 2nd edition doesn't have a lot of ways to eliminate class features that you don't want like Pathfinder 1e did. The way the rules are structured to do this is with class archetypes but there are few of those and none apply to the fighter.
Normally fighters who plan to use 2 handed weapons or a free hand or two weapon fighting just shrug and say "well, it's only a first level general feat so it's not really a big part of the power budget" and write it down on the character sheet and never use it.
This is not PF1 - you can't trade away every individual element. You are stuck with the core of your ancestry, and the skeleton of your class. You can pick and choose the rest but not these.
That still leaves you with a huge amount of build flexibility, but no you can't forget how to use a shield.
One more issue that will trigger you is that you can't start with an 18 unless it is the primary attribute of your class.
Yeah this is a pretty compelling argument for me to stick with PF1e.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could just not use a shield. PF1 also gives characters things they might not use. You're not hurt at all by just focusing on what you want.
Or you could just not use a shield. PF1 also gives characters things they might not use. You're not hurt at all by just focusing on what you want.
Your opinion is not a determining factor into what does and doesn't hurt my enjoyment of a thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the thing about PF2 is that the choices you make in terms of feats etc. generally do not make you better at a thing in terms of math. What basically every choice except for your ability scores does is "give you another option for a thing you can do". Since PF2 is a game that is optimized much more in the moment for the specific encounter via tactics rather than at character generation, "having more options" is actually quite strong. You'll notice that PF2 generally does not offer feats like weapon focus that are straight up math enhancers. Instead feats are things like "with a two action activity you can stride twice then strike" or "with a two action activity you can attack once with each weapon you're holding then apply MAP" or "for one action you can strike with an extra five feet of reach."
Especially since retraining is part of the core rules and virtually free, you're never going to want to guarantee that your character isn't able to do a thing. Since your two weapon fighter could become a sword and board fighter with a month of downtime after you find a really cool shield.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could just not use a shield. PF1 also gives characters things they might not use. You're not hurt at all by just focusing on what you want.Your opinion is not a determining factor into what does and doesn't hurt my enjoyment of a thing.
Okay? I'm not stating an opinion, or commenting on your feelings, I'm just saying there's no mechanical deficit to simply not using a shield. In the same way there's no penalty to not using the proficiency with boarding pikes you also get for free. You're not losing out on anything.
So the thing about PF2 is that the choices you make in terms of feats etc. generally do not make you better at a thing in terms of math. What basically every choice except for your ability scores does is "give you another option for a thing you can do". Since PF2 is a game that is optimized much more in the moment for the specific encounter via tactics rather than at character generation, "having more options" is actually quite strong. You'll notice that PF2 generally does not offer feats like weapon focus that are straight up math enhancers. Instead feats are things like "with a two action activity you can stride twice then strike" or "with a two action activity you can attack once with each weapon you're holding then apply MAP" or "for one action you can strike with an extra five feet of reach."
Especially since retraining is part of the core rules and virtually free, you're never going to want to guarantee that your character isn't able to do a thing. Since your two weapon fighter could become a sword and board fighter with a month of downtime after you find a really cool shield.
This goes against every instinct and impulse I have so hard I'm pretty sure I just got whiplash.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This goes against every instinct and impulse I have so hard I'm pretty sure I just got whiplash.
I understand the sentiment, even tho it was way less intense for me.
As a consolation measure you can pick up a buckler, even if you almost never use it. Some of the higher level special shields have effects on shield block that you might like to use in edge cases, like spell bastion, dejzet or dragonhide shields.A throwing shield adjustment does nothing for the shield block reaction but could also make you feel better about carrying an otherwise useless shield as it makes it into a ranged option that doesn't require being drawn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're not losing anything by not using shields.
Just make your character and forget shield block. You're applying PF1e character-building mentality to PF2e, this won't wield the results you want. In fact, forget even your conception of what's good or what isn't from PF1e, it won't help you either.
My suggestion: Focus on making your character concept work, not your build.
In case you want to make a good attacking build that's borderline broken, here it is: Take a Giant Instinct Barbarian and multiclass into a Dual-Weapon Archetype for Double Slice. If you want to go extra munchking, just pick Adopted Ancestry to use two Gnome Flickmaces (1d8 with Reach). There you go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm building a fighter. However, with the character concept I have in mind, I will never, under any circumstances, use a shield. How can I trade this ability that is useless to me for something else?
Afaik there is no RAW solution so your only option is to "ask your GM (tm)", who might be willing to let you exchange your "useless" level 1 general feat for another one (or provide a shortlist of available feats). Apart from this I really do understand your plight as I can only assume many a Fighter or Warpriest would really appreciate even Ride instead of the chassis locked Shield Block.
The thing is though that we do not know how Paizo designed the chassis in the first place. Is Shield Block for Fighters and Warpriests something that brought their "class and chassis budget" from 95% to 100%, i.e. you are indeed "missing out" when not at least semi-regularly using it, OR was Shield Block granted as a cherry on top of the finished chassis, like "nah, independant from fighting style and favorite weapon every Fighter and Warpriest should really know how to use a shield properly, so we just throw this in the mix, even if it nominally raises the chassis from 100% to 105%".
What you would trade Shield Block for hypothetically is just "another level 1 general feat" which is not exactly something amazing. You wouldn't want Armor Proficiency, Weapon Proficiency, or Incredible Initiative since you get those anyway (initiative at 7th though). I don't think it's really worth bugging the GM about getting Fleet or Toughness early.
Particularly since if the GM is a veteran of PF2, they probably realize that while there are classes that need more oomph, the fighter is not one of them.
Giving classes shield block in PF2 is comparable to "Giving classes proficiency with shields" in PF1 (shields are no longer a thing proficiency applies to). Lots of PF1 characters had proficiency with shields even if you never used one. Even in the most optimized PF1 builds you generally lived with some abilities you didn't use that you couldn't trade away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Normally fighters who plan to use 2 handed weapons or a free hand or two weapon fighting just shrug and say "well, it's only a first level general feat so it's not really a big part of the power budget" and write it down on the character sheet and never use it.This agitates my ocd greatly.
That's unfortunate.
You could simply not write it down on your sheet in order to not see it there.
------------
If you and your GM want to houserule it, the cost of Shield Block is fairly well defined. It is a level 1 general feat. Replacing that with a different level 1 general feat wouldn't be game breaking.
I wouldn't allow it. To me it feels like having shield block is in order to make the Fighter automatically able to use 1-hand and shield fighting styles without additional feat costs. If the Fighter instead wants to focus on a different weapon style, they aren't losing anything by having shield block there and not used. Trading shield block out in order to focus on 2-handed weapons seems like a noticeable power boost if they get an entire additional 1st level general feat for it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is sort of like how in Pathfinder 1st edition you had "A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armor (heavy, light, and medium) and shields (including tower shields)."
Now with archetyping you could trade away some of that, but if you wanted to build a fighter who was an archer you were actually better off with vanilla fighter than with the archer archetype (because of advanced weapon training). So you were always going to have that vestigial tower shield proficiency even if you used a bow.
Giving a class the shield block feat is literally just "you are proficient with shields" since there's no other way for the game to express this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This goes against every instinct and impulse I have so hard I'm pretty sure I just got whiplash.So the thing about PF2 is that the choices you make in terms of feats etc. generally do not make you better at a thing in terms of math. What basically every choice except for your ability scores does is "give you another option for a thing you can do". Since PF2 is a game that is optimized much more in the moment for the specific encounter via tactics rather than at character generation, "having more options" is actually quite strong. You'll notice that PF2 generally does not offer feats like weapon focus that are straight up math enhancers. Instead feats are things like "with a two action activity you can stride twice then strike" or "with a two action activity you can attack once with each weapon you're holding then apply MAP" or "for one action you can strike with an extra five feet of reach."
Especially since retraining is part of the core rules and virtually free, you're never going to want to guarantee that your character isn't able to do a thing. Since your two weapon fighter could become a sword and board fighter with a month of downtime after you find a really cool shield.
Many PF1 players found that their instincts misled them in PF2. The two games have different styles for victory.
The hostile creatures in PF2 are built by different rules. Instead of feats, they have the better numbers. They get the math enhancers that the PCs are denied. This asymmetrical design is to aid the GMs, who find specialized monsters with good numbers and very few strategies easy to play.
And if the PCs also rely on only one or two strategies, then one day they will find a level-appropriate monster better than them at both those strategies. The combat will be brutal when it was not intended to be. If the PCs rely on many strategies, then whatever the monster is good at, the PCs can switch to another strategy that the monster cannot handle. That is how my players keep winning.
The gratuitous abilities on the PCs have a knack for being unexpectedly useful so long as they open options. Perhaps one day, the shieldless fighter will face a high-level monster that hits so hard that only the fighter dares risk himself to hold it back while others make ranged attacks and the cleric heals him. And he will want to avoid the monster's damage as much as possible. So he picks up a shield for the first time, a sturdy steel shield dropped by a dead minion, and uses it to block.
The GM could permit trading Shield Block for another 1st-level General Feat. The GM and players can cooperate to make house rules. And the fighter would find the new feat as useful as Shield Block. But he might feel less like a fighter, because as Possible Cabbage explained in comment #7, fighters are about being good with all martial gear, including shields.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 does not yet have many Class Archetypes at all yet for whatever reason and THAT would be the subsystem that would end up offering this kind of trade out in that it's essentially the intended replacement system for the PF1 Archetype options where you trade options provided by your Class chassis for other Class-exclusive options.
Why they printed grand total of five Class Archetypes and left that subsystem to gather dust is beyond me but I imagine in the next few years we will see more published, or at least, I hope so.
I'm doubtful they will produce many class archetypes, because classes have less class features to trade away in PF2. I think they're mainly doing to focus on dedications that you will select by spending class feats, as is already the case.
Honestly, I think the game is better off with the old PF1 style "replace you class features at will" dead and buried. Too often it meant you could poach the class defining abilities (in PF1) and were widely unbalanced in terms of power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about class archetypes is that they're basically for three things:
1) Lack of a specific class feature is important to the concept of the character (e.g. "A witch without a familiar".)
2) You want to give the character something that's bigger than a single feat, and pay for it commensurately while also making sure it's functional from level 1 (e.g. a hypothetical Synthesist summoner)
3) You want to shuffle proficiencies or some other fundamental aspect of the character (e.g. a monk archetype that gets legendary unarmed attacks, but master unarmored defense)
Beyond those three things though, you're better off making it just a regular archetype since it can be taken by more characters at more points in their career. Class archetypes are sort of inherently subtractive in a way that regular archetypes are not.
You're absolutely right Possible Cabbage.
I just don't expect fighter is going to get a variant that removes shield block.
I think more likely would be a fighter class archetype that got legendary proficiency in heavy armor, but only master in weapons and had something along the line of armor related class feats that would do some cool stuff based on your armor.
You're absolutely right Possible Cabbage.
I just don't expect fighter is going to get a variant that removes shield block.
I think more likely would be a fighter class archetype that got legendary proficiency in heavy armor, but only master in weapons and had something along the line of armor related class feats that would do some cool stuff based on your armor.
I'd love a Fighter Unchained separating the Fighter features between a weapon Fighter and an armor one. With Full Plate proficiency, Armor Specialization, the lower level for Armor proficiency upgrades and the good saves moved out of the weapon Fighter. It would balance the Fighter once and for all.
But, well, it'd be a bit hard to make. I don't think we'll ever have any Unchained class in PF2, they seem too close to par for a massive rebalance to work.
I don't think any of the CRB classes need "Unchaining" TBH, since that happend in PF1 for 3 classes that were undertuned and one that was overtuned while the CRB classes are fine and the post-CRB classes are generally weaker except in their specific niche.
I think there is thematic room for a "protector" class that's not the Champion (so there's nothing inherently divine or religious about it) that could replace the "armor focused fighter."
I think there is thematic room for a "protector" class that's not the Champion (so there's nothing inherently divine or religious about it) that could replace the "armor focused fighter."
Definitely. There's room for what I'd call a "selfish tank". The evil Champions qualify, but in most games you can't play evil characters so it's an option that is not available to everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they end up doing neutral champions, I wonder what their reactions will be. Good champs punish enemies for targeting allies. Evil champs punish enemies for targeting them. Neutral could be something else entirely.
It will depend on their Cause and Tenets. Neutral can have a cause like pacifism, or balance, or self enlightenment, or opposition to the good/evil or law/chaos conflict, or just that they have another priority issue that is outside the typical dimensions of alignment. There are quite a few different ways of going with it.
Balance would be really cool like Moorcock's eternal champion. Pathfinder does alignment in an orthodox manner so there's potential for the concept.
I just hope it's not pacifism. That has an unfortunate track record of being pretty lame.
If they end up doing neutral champions, I wonder what their reactions will be. Good champs punish enemies for targeting allies. Evil champs punish enemies for targeting them. Neutral could be something else entirely.It will depend on their Cause and Tenets. Neutral can have a cause like pacifism, or balance, or self enlightenment, or opposition to the good/evil or law/chaos conflict, or just that they have another priority issue that is outside the typical dimensions of alignment. There are quite a few different ways of going with it.
They can focus more on buffing the target of the reaction, instead of retaliating against the aggressor.
Pacifism could enhance the defensive capabilities of the target (temporary HP, for example), Balance could either dish back some damage to the aggressor (or having something to do with trips/falling) and Self-Enlightenment could offer bonus to Will Saving Throws, new saves against mental effects and a +X to Hit for 1 round (clear mind for a better accuracy).
Balance would be really cool like Moorcock's eternal champion. Pathfinder does alignment in an orthodox manner so there's potential for the concept.
I just hope it's not pacifism. That has an unfortunate track record of being pretty lame.
The problem with "balance" for the neutral causes is that the Champion is a "God class" and while you can make a LG Paladin work for any of deities that allow LG clerics, there's a lot of TN deities who are that alignment because they DGAF about morality, they're just interested in their thing. Like there is perhaps nobody is less concerned with balance than Nethys, who is neutral by virtue of integrating over his entire portfolio as Nethys is essentially "all the extremes at the same time."
Balance is a complex lore subject. In the Moorcock books, Elric is an incarnation of the eternal champion but he's pretty much an antipaladin of Arioch who's CE.
If anything, what defines an envoy of balance is the discrepancy between their TN agenda and their aligned nature. Being TN and pursuing TN goals is more like being unaligned.
Balance of alignment isn't really a theological concept in Pathfinder. Most deities that aren't Good are Evil are such because their belief system is just not concerned with the good/evil dynamic. Abadar just wants you to follow the rules and protect civilization. Gorum just wants you to fight things. Pharasma just wants you to preserve the natural order of life and death.
Which is one tricky part of neutral champions, since it's harder to create a one-size-fits-all package. Good deities all have their own agendas, but it's easier to find a common thread than it is with the neutral ones, who tend to be much more focused on a specific agenda.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Rules Answer: There is no current way that I am aware of to get rid of shield block for a Fighter without GM fiat.
And I don't think there needs to be one honestly. People tend to have a diverse range of skills. It is fairly unrealistic for someone to ONLY be good at, or have applicable or special skills in, one topic even if they make a conscious effort to do so.