Physical shields and the shield cantrip only offer Hardness, which is simply subtracted from the total amount of damage, not each individual damage type. The only thing that works as you describe is resistance against all damage, such as from some champion's reactions. Which is rare on monsters. It's basically only incorporeal creatures and then a whole load of nothing with a few examples here and there.Becasue resistance 5 would not give PA any advantage.Not at all. Resistance 5 from a physical shield, shield cantrip or champions reaction - almost totally negates the 3d6 added to everything in this analysis for additional damage runes. Each damage type goes through resistance separately. In such a case it could count 4 times.
This is up for debate and could use clarification. I run hardness like resistance all myself for shields and monsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is up for debate and could use clarification. I run hardness like resistance all myself for shields and monsters.Physical shields and the shield cantrip only offer Hardness, which is simply subtracted from the total amount of damage, not each individual damage type. The only thing that works as you describe is resistance against all damage, such as from some champion's reactions. Which is rare on monsters. It's basically only incorporeal creatures and then a whole load of nothing with a few examples here and there.Becasue resistance 5 would not give PA any advantage.Not at all. Resistance 5 from a physical shield, shield cantrip or champions reaction - almost totally negates the 3d6 added to everything in this analysis for additional damage runes. Each damage type goes through resistance separately. In such a case it could count 4 times.
Is it really up for debate?
"Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness." (item damage)
"Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to the shield’s Hardness." (shield Block)
That is clear - when you take damage, you reduce the entire result by the Hardness value. It's one instance of damage, not several. The rules for all-res are also only under resistances. Hardness is not resistance (even if the result is essentially the same) and most certainly not resistance against all damage, which is also why it has a different name. I don't see any basis for treating Hardness like all-res.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is up for debate and could use clarification. I run hardness like resistance all myself for shields and monsters.Physical shields and the shield cantrip only offer Hardness, which is simply subtracted from the total amount of damage, not each individual damage type. The only thing that works as you describe is resistance against all damage, such as from some champion's reactions. Which is rare on monsters. It's basically only incorporeal creatures and then a whole load of nothing with a few examples here and there.Becasue resistance 5 would not give PA any advantage.Not at all. Resistance 5 from a physical shield, shield cantrip or champions reaction - almost totally negates the 3d6 added to everything in this analysis for additional damage runes. Each damage type goes through resistance separately. In such a case it could count 4 times.Is it really up for debate?
That is clear - when you take damage, you reduce the entire result by the Hardness value. It's one instance of damage, not several. The rules for all-res are also only under resistances. Hardness is not resistance (even if the result is essentially the same) and most certainly not resistance against all damage, which is also why it has a different name. I don't see any basis for treating Hardness like all-res."Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness." (item damage)
"Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to the shield’s Hardness." (shield Block)
Yes. It is up for debate. Each type of damage is an instance of damage. That's why we track it separately to reduce by various resistances because they are unique instances of damage. A damage rune does 1d6 damage of a certain type.
Just like if you hit a wall or trap, the hardness reduces each type of damage.
That's how I play it. I've never read that damage isn't typed and a unique instance. In those situations where the damage should be added against a resistance, it is listed.
Hardness is like resistance as near as I can tell. Not sure why I would think otherwise.
From Item Damage:
Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness.
Any damage it takes, so if it takes cold damage it is reduced by its hardness. Blunt damage reduced by its hardness.
Nowhere does it say to add all the damage of different types up and apply hardness against the total. I believe it would have said that had it been intended.
So yes, it very much is open to debate. It should have been made more clear. Damage has types. If it was to be totaled first, then that should have been made clear.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is up for debate and could use clarification. I run hardness like resistance all myself for shields and monsters.Physical shields and the shield cantrip only offer Hardness, which is simply subtracted from the total amount of damage, not each individual damage type. The only thing that works as you describe is resistance against all damage, such as from some champion's reactions. Which is rare on monsters. It's basically only incorporeal creatures and then a whole load of nothing with a few examples here and there.Becasue resistance 5 would not give PA any advantage.Not at all. Resistance 5 from a physical shield, shield cantrip or champions reaction - almost totally negates the 3d6 added to everything in this analysis for additional damage runes. Each damage type goes through resistance separately. In such a case it could count 4 times.Is it really up for debate?
That is clear - when you take damage, you reduce the entire result by the Hardness value. It's one instance of damage, not several. The rules for all-res are also only under resistances. Hardness is not resistance (even if the result is essentially the same) and most certainly not resistance against all damage, which is also why it has a different name. I don't see any basis for treating Hardness like all-res."Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness." (item damage)
"Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to the shield’s Hardness." (shield Block)
Yes. It is up for debate. Each type of damage is an instance of damage. That's why we track it separately to reduce by various resistances because they are unique instances of damage. A damage rune does 1d6 damage of a certain type.
Sadly yes. The Damage Rules don't really cleanly break out what an instance of damage is. It seems clear that different types of damage go though resistance separately. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately.
The rules also don't tell us what hardness is clearly either. It it just resistance for objects? Maybe. Maybe not but then what other damage rules would you use?So we have to make some assumptions. Which means reasonable people will do it differently.
Each type of damage isn't an instance of damage. Getting hit with a flaming impactful frost maul is still only one instance of damage. It follows the damage flowchart as a whole, only one step of which is reducing the component damage types via resistances, and reduces the target's HP at the end. Those damage types are not a separate thing.
Your interpretation would obviously break so many things. Just take shield block - if all were separate instances of damage, you would have to use a reaction for every single type of damage, as the trigger is "you would take damage". To block the damage of the previously mentioned maul, you would need 4 reactions. So that is clearly wrong.
The rules also don't tell us what hardness is clearly either. It it just resistance for objects? Maybe. Maybe not but then what other damage rules would you use?
So we have to make some assumptions. Which means reasonable people will do it differently.
Yeah, that is true. Hardness certainly doesn't appear in the flowchart.
But as only one interpretation doesn't break the entire system - treating Hardness basically as a non-specific resistance that reduces the damage total in an imagined step 3.5 - it isn't like there is much wiggle room here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting hit with a flaming impactful frost maul is still only one instance of damage.
That makes creatures with multiple types of resistance or weakness interact really weirdly with attacks that have multiple different types of damage in them.
Each type of damage isn't an instance of damage.
Well instance of damage is not really defined. But the rules are clear that different damage types go through resistance separately. Quoted preciously
Getting hit with a flaming impactful frost maul is still only one instance of damage. It follows the damage flowchart as a whole, only one step of which is reducing the component damage types via resistances, and reduces the target's HP at the end. Those damage types are not a separate thing.
Your interpretation would obviously break so many things. Just take shield block - if all were separate instances of damage, you would have to use a reaction for every single type of damage, as the trigger is "you would take damage". To block the damage of the previously mentioned maul, you would need 4 reactions. So that is clearly wrong.
No not at all. The trigger is still just one attack or strike that you block. It is when you get into the damage resolution that it gets complex.
Unfortunately Paizo have written their rules in a conversational natural tone and they are just not tight or well defined.
I mean it is very clear that the Champions reaction is resistance to ALL damage and it works like I said.
Getting hit with a flaming impactful frost maul is still only one instance of damage.That makes creatures with multiple types of resistance or weakness interact really weirdly with attacks that have multiple different types of damage in them.
During step 3 of the damage flowchart, you just reduce the individual damage types by the respective resistances and apply the highest weakness. There is a lot of wibbly-wobbly phrasing in there, admittedly.
Sadly yes. The Damage...This is up for debate and could use clarification. I run hardness like resistance all myself for shields and monsters.Physical shields and the shield cantrip only offer Hardness, which is simply subtracted from the total amount of damage, not each individual damage type. The only thing that works as you describe is resistance against all damage, such as from some champion's reactions. Which is rare on monsters. It's basically only incorporeal creatures and then a whole load of nothing with a few examples here and there.Becasue resistance 5 would not give PA any advantage.Not at all. Resistance 5 from a physical shield, shield cantrip or champions reaction - almost totally negates the 3d6 added to everything in this analysis for additional damage runes. Each damage type goes through resistance separately. In such a case it could count 4 times.Is it really up for debate?
That is clear - when you take damage, you reduce the entire result by the Hardness value. It's one instance of damage, not several. The rules for all-res are also only under resistances. Hardness is not resistance (even if the result is essentially the same) and most certainly not resistance against all damage, which is also why it has a different name. I don't see any basis for treating Hardness like all-res."Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness." (item damage)
"Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to the shield’s Hardness." (shield Block)
Yes. It is up for debate. Each type of damage is an instance of damage. That's why we track it separately to reduce by various resistances because they are unique instances of damage. A damage rune does 1d6 damage of a certain type.
If I were at someone else's table, I'd go with their ruling. Hardness seems like resistance all for materials, objects, and the like. That's how I run it. Some clarification would be nice as long as it made sense with various materials.
While I still disagree on certain interpretations, I can see now how this whole deal is ambiguous. Definitely worth an errata pass.
To me it's just resistance to the given damage ( or else shield block would be too strong, and any creature dealing different kind of damage would be useless).
And I think shield block would be too weak the other way. A shield user giving up using a two-handed weapon or dual wielding should expect to block a lot of damage using their reaction for it. I have zero problem with them completely blocking one attack's damage for the cost of a reaction and an action to raise a shield. Even two if they focus on it.
This is all action management. You chose what you use your reactions on.
Creatures that only do one type of damage are going to rip through the shield, which will have to be repaired often.
One of the reasons I started running Hardness as resistance all is because shields seemed far too weak the other way and not worth using. It would get destroyed quickly and easily, especially if critically hit.
To be fair, creatures dealing multiple damage types are somewhat uncommon. Even then it is usually just two types at most and the non-physical damage type is a d6 or two. The PCs are the ones that are heavily incentivised to stack multiple damage types. Then there is also constructs, many of which have hardness, which this makes a lot more powerful than necessary and ofc enemies with shields. So really, the PCs are the ones who'll feel this the most and to their detriment. But it seems to work for your table, so... eh?
As far as shields and shield block go, the defensive advantage they offer is already substantial. The AC bonus alone is great crit protection (which is the really important part) and with a sturdy shield, in addition to that your shield blocks will increase your sustain against normal attacks by a fair margin. And yes, if you get crit and you shield block, your shield will melt. Just... don't block crits. Overall, shields are absolutely worth using in any case.
The user will block a lot of damage.
Any non champion character can easily block 4/5 times per fight ( 5/6 with pebble, and by lvl 13 they can also get the repair oil).
Making the hardness work on all damage ( for what concerns the damage the shield gets) would make endgame creatures with alignment / elemental damage way worse than normal creeps dealing S/B/P damage.
For example demons, dragons, and similar.
What has to be taken into account is imo that:
1) the major DR comes from the raise shield action. So even an utility shield can have it with no issue.
2) shield block gives its best against small blows. Using it against high blows, as well as critical hits, would not work in the right way, making the shield reaching its BT way sooner than intended.
3) extra reactions like quick shield block are not meant to give you 2* shield block per round ( the shield won't last that much) but rather a shield block and a different reaction.
Point 3 can be dealt with a full shield block build ( sturdy + divine ally shield + ever stand stance, + dwarven reinforcements + the cleric +1 hardness + consumables. Eventually an indestructible shield, that might be available by lvl19/20 as it's a rare 17 item).
But being able to reduce e 1/4 or even 1/3 of the character total hp ( in addition to the raise shield DR) is already a lot.
One critical hit and your shield is wrecked if you stack the damage. And creatures get multiple attacks and can avoid the shield wearer to focus on softer targets if they so choose. You do less damage for the higher defense.
I don't agree it's only for small hits. Players that invest heavily in a shield should not only be blocking small hits. They should be able to block a substantial amount of damage from a single hit. They are a defender type of class and even with a shield will take a ton of hits.
When we were debating Hardness, it is watching the shield in action across levels that made us choose Hardness to act as resistance all. Shields were getting wrecked the other way, while providing very little damage reduction. You invested feats, class abilities, and an item along with an action and a reaction to block a single hit and your shield could get wrecked after one critical hit or a few hits.
If you happen to be fighting multiple CR equal to -3 targets, blocking one attack damage is next to nothing when you have to 6 to 9 or more attacks coming in on you.
Then you have to chose to block versus using a Retributive Strike or an AoO. The shield block should be as spectacular as an AoO or Champion's Reaction that does resistance all damage and reduces a hit all the way down. Why exactly for a greater cost should a shield be worse than other reaction abilities?
I don't see it as overpowered at all to completely block the damage from a single attack using a reaction and a very nice item you will have invested in if you have a nice shield.
Making the hardness work on all damage ( for what concerns the damage the shield gets) would make endgame creatures with alignment / elemental damage way worse than normal creeps dealing S/B/P damage.
For example demons, dragons, and similar.
Yes but it all exists already because there is no question that champion's reaction works like this. Champions are a popular class they likely will all get 2 champion's reactions. Plus it is a popular multiclass.
Champions Reaction has more hardness than a shield, and does more things besides.
Then there is the fact that damage totals can get very very high. 20 hardness at level 20 is not that much of a problem. Attacks from reactions are still doing much more than that. Defensive reactions have to be a viable proposition.
So Shields are a good tactic against some creatures more than others. Maybe damage runes aren't always the best choice.
I'm just not seeing the balance concern.
That analysis has all the circumstances you mentioned counted in since they used https://bahalbach.github.io/PF2Calculator . Meaning that after Exacting Strike there are "child activities" that depend on Exacting Roll. So failure: next X attack -5, success or bette: next X attack at -10, crit failure: next X attack at -10. It's all counted in there.The analysis also assumes that you have extra action to attack with to get the benefit of Exacting Strike. Note that it has the press trait so it is only helping your 3rd attack, by making it as good as your second attack. Often you won't have that action as you want to do something else.
Sometimes you will critically fail your Exacting Strike attack, it is at -5 after all, then it doesn't give its benefit (press trait).
Yes I checked with the original poster and he confirmed that was counted in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's just houserule at this point. If Hardness was supposed to work like Resistance, they would just say Shields have Resistance (all damage) instead of creating Hardness. There is nothing in rules saying Hardness should work like Resistance.
I run hardness like resistance all myself for shields and monsters.
Well that is the problem, there just isn't much about hardness at all. But what there is about damage implies each damage type is evaluated separately. If each damage type is evaluated separately nothing more is required. That is the only thing which causes the Champions resistance to protect multiple times. That is all that hardness needs to work exactly like resistance.
AFAICT what you are proposing is what deviates from the rules.
Making the hardness work on all damage ( for what concerns the damage the shield gets) would make endgame creatures with alignment / elemental damage way worse than normal creeps dealing S/B/P damage.
For example demons, dragons, and similar.
Yes but it all exists already because there is no question that champion's reaction works like this. Champions are a popular class they likely will get all 2 champion's reactions. Plus it is a popular multiclass.
Champions Reaction has more hardness than a shield, and does more things besides.
Then there is the fact that damage totals can get very very high. 20 hardness at level 20 is not that much of a problem.
So Shields are a good tactic against some creatures more than others.
I'm just not seeing the balance concern.
Champion reaction is something meant to protect the rest of the party, and is that way because the champion themselves are given legendary armor proficiency ( +2AC, starting from lvl 7 ) and heavy armor ( starting from lvl 1 or 2, depends how you and your party manage your golds ).
And most of all, it's something explicitly pointed out.
A player is not left on the "assumption" that the champion reaction "might" reduce all damage.Hardness doesn't mention anything of it, apart from the fact that you have to apply the extra damage, not covered by harndess, to both shield and character hp.
But that's also even if we were to leve apart the balance thing.
I would just follow what's written ( subtract and apply what extra damage to both character and shield ), rather than trying to dig deep and make assumptions ( though I can understand that those who stricly play by raw try to give a meaning to every single point, bolded text, comma, and similar ).
Yes. Champion's Reaction is to protect the party. Then you can avoid the Champion's Reaction by attacking the Champion. So he uses Shield Block to protect himself. Why should it be weaker than the Champion's Reaction?
Champion is built to be a tank. So should be able to block damage on an ally and on himself equally well, so the opportunity cost of attacking the Champion or his ally is roughly equal.
I've seen this in play. It isn't a balance problem at all. In fact, doing hardness the way you want to do really starts to hurt at higher level when damage stacking from multiple sources is quite high. One critical hit and your shield is all done. Then you lose its protection in all ways.
I have no idea why you don't want a shield block to be as spectacular as a Champion's Reaction.
You're flat out wrong about the number of times a Champion can block per battle. I've seen the shield block in action. Your party has a lot of attacks coming at the entire party spread across you and your allies. You have multiple reactions you might use. So you using a Shield block every time would require the following:
1. The creature/s keeps attacking you. Rare as shield users are hard targets with lower damage, so enemies tend to target softer targets dealing more damage.
2. The creature would have to do multiple types of damage, which is also rare. If it does one type of damage, it's going to chew your shield up.
3. You would have to forego all other reaction abilities.
4. You have to invest in the right shield feats.
5. You have to pay a portion of your magic items into a quality shield with high hardness.
6. Then you have to use one action a round to raise the shield, further reducing your damage and abilities to do other actions.
All of this investment and you think shield block is only for small hits? Still not sure why you think this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's just houserule at this point. If Hardness was supposed to work like Resistance, they would just say Shields have Resistance (all damage) instead of creating Hardness. There is nothing in rules saying Hardness should work like Resistance.
I run hardness like resistance all myself for shields and monsters.Well that is the problem, there just isn't much about hardness at all. But what there is about damage implies each damage type is evaluated separately. If each damage type is evaluated separately nothing more is required. That is the only thing which causes the Champions resistance to protect multiple times. That is all that hardness needs to work exactly like resistance.
AFAICT what you are proposing is what deviates from the rules.
My apologize, but I don't undertand your comparsion between Champion Reaction and Hardness.
The Champion Reaction clearly says: "The ally gains resistance to all damage against the triggering damage". So it's clear that it's resistnace so it works as per resistance rules.
Hardness clearly says: "Whenever a shield takes damage, the amount of damage it takes is reduced by this amount.".
Also in Item Damage rules: "Every item has a Hardness value. Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness. The rest of the damage reduces the item’s Hit Points"
Sorry if I missed or misunderstood somethnig in your post, but I don't see what Champion Reaction granting Resistance has to do with Hardness. If I missed something, please let me know.
Since hardness is not as specific as Champion's Reaction, comparing Shield Block to Champion's Reaction gives you an idea of the power of competing Reaction based abilities.
Champion's Reaction clearly shows that interpreting Hardness to act as resistance all in no way makes it more powerful than something similar like Champion's Reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The damage rules are written as if damage is only one type. They do not cleanly separate multiple types from one type. They do not define an instance of damage.
They talk as if there is only one instance of damage but there is not one instance of damage when it has multiple types. Example they treat persistent damage as just another damage type when it doesn't even happen at the same time. It is very vague and very loose. You actually can't read it as a tight procedure as it just doesn't work.
Yes I'm only treating hardness as resistance by analogy. So if you don't accept that then yes you can treat hardness as something other than resistance. But you have to read the rules in an open way as they are too vague to work any other way.
Another example how do you take one static point of splash damage? It doesn't even show in the damage formula there is no place for it. But clearly it needs to go through this process.
Here is something specific. Wall of Ice. It is an object with immunities, weaknesses and hardness. No it doesn't say anything specific about hardness, but it does go toward pulling objects into this complex damage procedure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no RAW behind your position either, Kyle.
What I'm saying is I believe RAI applies to Hardness acting like Resistance. I think they intended it to work like resistance.
I have tested shields to high level. Shield Block is pretty worthless if it doesn't work like Resistance.
This idea that you only need the feat to use it is a false one. I explained all that was needed to make Shield Block work like you and Humblegamer are claiming. I'll post it again since you are vastly underselling how Shield Block works in real play:
1. The creature/s keeps attacking you. It has to keep choosing you as the target for its attacks or Shield Block is useless unless you invest even more feats and position next to allies. So a person investing heavily in shield blocking but isn't a champion can't block an ally as well as a Champion? Why not?
2. The creature would have to do multiple types of damage, which is also rare. If it does one type of damage, it's going to chew your shield up.
3. You would have to forego all other reaction abilities.
4. You have to invest in the right shield feats.
5. You have to pay a portion of your magic items into a quality shield with high hardness.
6. Then you have to use one action a round to raise the shield, further reducing your damage and abilities to do other actions.
Probably even more limitations to Shield Block to block a single attack per round, maybe two if you get a second reaction. Somehow this seems overpowered?
My game experience in play with shields says otherwise.
How do you counter Shield block?
1. Don't attack the shield user. Shield Block rendered completely inert.
2. Attack the Shield user with multiple other attackers. Not enough reactions to block all attacks.
Easy to bypass Shield Block. So those few times when it does prove useful, I prefer to run Hardness where Shield Block is a great ability for those rare times it does get used.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hardness and Resist: All work differently. That is why they are different things. If they acted the same, they would be the same.
I disagree and I think what you said is exactly the point: that class feature should be stronger than shield that anyone...Yes. Champion's Reaction is to protect the party. Then you can avoid the Champion's Reaction by attacking the Champion. So he uses Shield Block to protect himself. Why should it be weaker than the Champion's Reaction?
Champion is built to be a tank. So should be able to block damage on an ally and on himself equally well, so the opportunity cost of attacking the Champion or his ally is roughly equal.
I've seen this in play. It isn't a balance problem at all. In fact, doing hardness the way you want to do really starts to hurt at higher level when damage stacking from multiple sources is quite high. One critical hit and your shield is all done. Then you lose its protection in all ways.
I have no idea why you don't want a shield block to be as spectacular as a Champion's Reaction.
You're flat out wrong about the number of times a Champion can block per battle. I've seen the shield block in action. Your party has a lot of attacks coming at the entire party spread across you and your allies. You have multiple reactions you might use. So you using a Shield block every time would require the following:
1. The creature/s keeps attacking you. Rare as shield users are hard targets with lower damage, so enemies tend to target softer targets dealing more damage.
2. The creature would have to do multiple types of damage, which is also rare. If it does one type of damage, it's going to chew your shield up.
3. You would have to forego all other reaction abilities.
4. You have to invest in the right shield feats.
5. You have to pay a portion of your magic items into a quality shield with high hardness.
6. Then you have to use one action a round to raise the shield, further reducing your damage and abilities to do other actions.
All of this investment and you think shield block is only for small hits? Still not sure why you think this.
This isn't true at all:
1. Champion's Reaction and Shield Block allow the Champion to be the best tank in the game. Attack the Champion, he blocks the damage. Attack his ally, he blocks the damage. It makes it so the Champion's Reaction and Shield block make for the most amazing tanking in the game.
2. The fighter has to invest many feats and position to block damage on allies with shield block. So if you're a fighter and you invest heavily to use Shield Block to block damage on allies and position to do this, why wouldn't it be as good as a Champion's Reaction? You spend 3 or 4 feats to block damage on allies while using your action to raise the shield, positioning in the right place, then using your reaction and you can't get a shield block as good as a Champion's Reaction? Why? Why should a fighter have to invest so much to block damage on allies to get such a weak damage block ability?
You and Humblegamer are arguing theoretical situations, rather than going by what occurs in the game. You are saying something is overpowered or imbalanced because you have not tested it in play.
I've tested this in play and took my position after testing. Shields are getting wrecked. This idea that they are only for small hits is a completely ridiculous one. If you have a shield, you want to block the most dangerous hit, not use your reaction you can use for other things 5 or 10 points of damage you can easily absorb.
This exactly like when someone was trying to convince me the Shadow Signet Ring was overpowered. They were completely wrong. The item did next to nothing to make Spell Attack spells overpowered or more useful. I'm still not seeing the Shadow Signet Ring being heavily used to some kind of imbalanced outcome.
The way I run Hardness also doesn't cause any issues in the game. There are already innate limiters on Shield Block in terms of number of reactions and opportunity cost of Reaction Based activities as well as investing in shield use over using a higher damage weapon like a Maul or Reach Polearm.
I've already seen it in action. Hardness as Resistance All doesn't have any substantial impact on the game except to make a Shield user have a cool moment blocking a heavy damage attack on those occasions when it occurs. That's the sole impact of Hardness as Resistance All.
They don't do more damage.
They don't make combat trivial.
They don't make the shield this thing everyone wants to use all of a sudden.
Nothing bad happens in the game. And a player using Shield Block gets a few great moments using a Shield here and there. Given the fast and furious nature of PF2, I consider that a good thing.
Hardness and Resist: All work differently. That is why they are different things. If they acted the same, they would be the same.
And they explain what is different about them. But in no way do they make any distinction to how they react to different types of damage other than they reduce damage by their number. Damage has different types and different types of damage apply to that number separately. There is nothing written in hardness to indicate otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I think all the examples you made...There is no RAW behind your position either, Kyle.
What I'm saying is I believe RAI applies to Hardness acting like Resistance. I think they intended it to work like resistance.
I have tested shields to high level. Shield Block is pretty worthless if it doesn't work like Resistance.
This idea that you only need the feat to use it is a false one. I explained all that was needed to make Shield Block work like you and Humblegamer are claiming. I'll post it again since you are vastly underselling how Shield Block works in real play:
1. The creature/s keeps attacking you. It has to keep choosing you as the target for its attacks or Shield Block is useless unless you invest even more feats and position next to allies. So a person investing heavily in shield blocking but isn't a champion can't block an ally as well as a Champion? Why not?
2. The creature would have to do multiple types of damage, which is also rare. If it does one type of damage, it's going to chew your shield up.
3. You would have to forego all other reaction abilities.
4. You have to invest in the right shield feats.
5. You have to pay a portion of your magic items into a quality shield with high hardness.
6. Then you have to use one action a round to raise the shield, further reducing your damage and abilities to do other actions.
Probably even more limitations to Shield Block to block a single attack per round, maybe two if you get a second reaction. Somehow this seems overpowered?
My game experience in play with shields says otherwise.
How do you counter Shield block?
1. Don't attack the shield user. Shield Block rendered completely inert.
2. Attack the Shield user with multiple other attackers. Not enough reactions to block all attacks.
Easy to bypass Shield Block. So those few times when it does prove useful, I prefer to run Hardness where Shield Block is a great ability for those rare times it does get used.
I will tell you what I think happened.
Hardness applies to objects. A shield is an object, so Paizo came up with a rule that gave it hardness and allowed damage to be reduced by Hardness. Then as busy as they were with all other things, they wrote up a section on Hardness that was pretty vague in relation to damage. Then never bothered to clarify it because they were busy with lots of other stuff in their overly huge CRB.
So clarity on this fell through the cracks. So now DMs are left to run Hardness in a way that seems best for their table. Some run it as you do where you aggregate all damage even from different types and apply it to hardness, others run it as I do where each type of damage applies to the hardness. It isn't clear, so we go with what we think makes the most sense.
Now when it comes to shields, when I first started they were a bit confusing and I ran it as you and Humblegamer run it. But shields were getting blown apart. My players were asking me how much damage was done by the monsters because they didn't want to block it if their shield was blown apart losing the +2 AC bonus.
I understood this as the shield's broken threshold was not that many hit points. A single blow at first level from a tough creature and your shield is out of action if you block. This makes you feel pretty terrible using a shield with a one handed weaker damage weapon.
Then there was the idea of what happens after the damage gets past the shield. The rule said both the user and the shield take the excess damage. So we further divided this up as half to the user and half the shield, for odd numbers greater damage to the user. This made the shield seem a bit more reasonable.
Then I read on the boards there was some some question of whether Hardness runs like Resistance all or aggregate damage. So I decided to run it like Resistance all to see if that made the shield a better experience to use. And it did.
The shield became a much better item running like resistance all. So now I have my shield use rules I follow:
1. Excess damage is divided between user and shield equally with higher number going to user for odd numbers.
2. Hardness works like resistance all.
Even with these two additions, it hasn't made shield use increase. But has at least made shield users feel a bit better about using the Shield Block reaction when they do make a shield user.
Shield use is mostly avoided in favor of doing more damage and using more spectacular reactions. Even Champion paladins prefer to use their Retributive Strike on 2-handed Weapon smashes because killing something faster is more fun and seemingly more effective than a weak shield block against a single attack.
That's why I did what I did. Not because I was trying to create something overpowered or misread the rules. I did it because after testing my rule changes made the shield slightly more desirable to use. When I say slightly, I mean slightly as in still rarely gets used. Most people would rather pick up a spell casting archetype and use a shield cantrip than carry a shield around, worry about repairing it, and using an action to raise it every round having to use on of their hands to hold the shield and the other to hold a weapon. Shields just aren't that great in PF2. Not a lot of bang for the buck in having one past maybe the low levels.
Leaving apart the desire to interpretate something which is worded in a different way ( being in the same crb, that has been reprinted a few times with erratas, meaning that if hardness and resist all had been the same, paizo would have written so ), I can see that both our expectations and experience differ.
I think we are no longer discussing about shield efficiency, but rather expectations.
A shield user gets a huge DR from both shield raise and shield block, but if you feel that being able to block 3/5 times per combat ( with a character that didn't invest in shield feats and talismans/gadgets ) is not enough and that shield should be able to withstand more damage... the best I can do is to accept that you expected more, and because so found a way to make shields more close to what you expected at your own table.
ps: to conclude, the champion example was meant to give a comparison between shield block and an ability meant to give a similar DR to +3 AC ( +1 from the full plate and +2 from master armor lvl 7 ) to an ally.
You can see yourself how Paizo handled it as a self defense with the desacrator one ( Your self-interest keeps you safe. You gain resistance against the triggering damage equal to 2 + half your level, regardless of damage type ).
Huge is a big overstatement.
What they get is a single attack damage reduction in exchange for the use of 1 action and 1 reaction that works only against targeted physical attacks when the shield is raised. There are a variety of inherent limiters to Shield Block.
Whereas the Desecrator and Champion's Reaction are only limited by taking damage and range. It works against every type of damage whether a physical attack or energy or what not. It even works against persistent damage if from the same attack from what I understand. It pays for this wider and individual use by being less effective than other Champion's Reactions.
There seems to be balance points based on how wide the use of the ability is. Since Shield Block is extremely limited and action intensive to maintain with a higher opportunity damage cost to the user, I'd rather read hardness in a favorable way to the player.
...There is no RAW behind your position either, Kyle.
What I'm saying is I believe RAI applies to Hardness acting like Resistance. I think they intended it to work like resistance.
I have tested shields to high level. Shield Block is pretty worthless if it doesn't work like Resistance.
This idea that you only need the feat to use it is a false one. I explained all that was needed to make Shield Block work like you and Humblegamer are claiming. I'll post it again since you are vastly underselling how Shield Block works in real play:
1. The creature/s keeps attacking you. It has to keep choosing you as the target for its attacks or Shield Block is useless unless you invest even more feats and position next to allies. So a person investing heavily in shield blocking but isn't a champion can't block an ally as well as a Champion? Why not?
2. The creature would have to do multiple types of damage, which is also rare. If it does one type of damage, it's going to chew your shield up.
3. You would have to forego all other reaction abilities.
4. You have to invest in the right shield feats.
5. You have to pay a portion of your magic items into a quality shield with high hardness.
6. Then you have to use one action a round to raise the shield, further reducing your damage and abilities to do other actions.
Probably even more limitations to Shield Block to block a single attack per round, maybe two if you get a second reaction. Somehow this seems overpowered?
My game experience in play with shields says otherwise.
How do you counter Shield block?
1. Don't attack the shield user. Shield Block rendered completely inert.
2. Attack the Shield user with multiple other attackers. Not enough reactions to block all attacks.
Easy to bypass Shield Block. So those few times when it does prove useful, I prefer to run Hardness where Shield Block is a great ability for those
I agree Hardness is different.
What I do not agree is clear is that Hardness is applied to aggregate damage given damage is of different types and we have very strong RAI damage is to be applied per source like cold damage is separate from bludgeoning is separate from fire and slashing, thus you apply each type of damage individually against resistances even if not resistance all and something like Hardness which provides no clear guidance that it applies to all damage aggregated before application.
I feel had they intended Hardness to apply to total damage all added together, they would have made that clear as they have everywhere else it applies such as Flurry of Blows where they say if you hit twice, apply resistance of similar types of resistance after aggregating both attacks.
They have done this in several places where they say add all the damage before applying resistance of any kind. As Hardness acts like resistance reducing damage and in no way does it say aggregate damage prior to reducing by Hardness, I see no reason to see absent further clarification while the same would not apply.
Otherwise a single sentence could have been added: Add all damage of any type together before applying hardness.
One sentence would have made everything clear, yet Paizo chose if I am to believe you and Humblegamer not to add it while adding references all over the game that individual types of damage apply separately to any type of resistance and Hardness operates much like resistance reducing damage with no indication that you aggregate different types of damage to a total before applying hardness. And nowhere to show that this would be the normal method for aggregating damage as PF2 very clearly encourages players to separate damage types in damage rolls.
All my players very clearly separate damage types for just this reason in all their rolls because PF2 very much implies that each type of damage is its own damage source. Thus Hardness whose closest analogue is resistance would operate similarly given he lack of indication of damage being aggregated before applying it.
Types of damage do not stack ever in PF2 unless the ability clearly says to do so. A cold rune does not stack with bludgeoning damage. That is very clear. Each does its own damage to the target separately. That part is very, very clear in PF2.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power attack is one powerful attack....as a man who enjoys big numbers and big handfuls of dice but doesn't care about being statistically optimized, I see no problem here. It caters to a play style. If the statistics prove a deterrent (when the feat clearly does what it says on the tin) then I think the player didn't want that play style, they wanted an advantage. I feel no sympathy with their struggle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the math here and on reddit is accurate, then it certainly shows one of two things - Furious Focus shouldn't exist and Power Attack shouldn't count as two attacks. Being worse at much greater cost is unbalanced and needs correction. Or Exacting Strike is simply overpowered and has to be nerfed.
Given that Power Attack would be situational even in the first case, I'm certainly more in favour of buffing rather than nerfing.
If the math here and on reddit is accurate, then it certainly shows one of two things - Furious Focus shouldn't exist and Power Attack shouldn't count as two attacks. Being worse at much greater cost is unbalanced and needs correction. Or Exacting Strike is simply overpowered and has to be nerfed.
Given that Power Attack would be situational even in the first case, I'm certainly more in favour of buffing rather than nerfing.
Look I agree that Power Attack is not the must have that it used to be. I am happy enough to acceot the maths from the reddit thread. Though I consider 3 damage runes to be a bit of a distortion I normally want at least one of something else.
Power Attack has it's place. Everything I said here is still true:
It is the better option when:
a) Resistance is a factor
b) You improve it with Furious Focus to get rid of the second MAP penalty. Then Power Attack plus Strike is better than Strike x3.
c) You have a bonus on your next attack only. Example: Aid, True Strike, Devise a Strategem.
Even in that thread the writer accepts that Power Attack is better for a) and c). In my experience those are common circumstances.
I will agree that for strength based martials Power Attack is mostly not as good as attacking twice. I will agree that often Exacting Strike is the mostly the better choice even than Power Attack plus Furious Focus. But Exacting Strike has issues as well. You often don't get the 3rd attack. Though Exacting Strike is better if there is the option of a 4th quickened attack.
I hope you realise by now that I am more than happy to call out something I see as wrong and I'm not a mindless worshiper of the amazing maths of PF2. They do have a few things wrong. I mean I do have problems with the value proposition of many of the Fighter feats. I just don't think some of them are worth the cost of taking them compared to other options. Curiously there is little agreement on what those feats are.
Would I have tuned Power Attack differently? Maybe the extra dice it gives could come in 3 levels earlier than they did? Perhaps that might be a better balance point, but I don't want to crowd out other options.
On the scale of balance issues it hardly rates. Power Attack is mostly about right. I doubt they will revisit it. I mean they more or less replicated it with Megaton Strike.
Hardness and Resist: All work differently. That is why they are different things. If they acted the same, they would be the same.
The object rules are a bit of a hack that were tacked on at the last minute. PF2 still doesn't have an official rule for striking an object other than - its up to the GM.
I do accept that Hardness is a property of an object and a different thing to Resistance. However in practice the way the damage rules work - certainly as I read them - Hardness is not significantly different to resistance to everything. I see Hardness as future proofing.
...There is no RAW behind your position either, Kyle.
What I'm saying is I believe RAI applies to Hardness acting like Resistance. I think they intended it to work like resistance.
I have tested shields to high level. Shield Block is pretty worthless if it doesn't work like Resistance.
This idea that you only need the feat to use it is a false one. I explained all that was needed to make Shield Block work like you and Humblegamer are claiming. I'll post it again since you are vastly underselling how Shield Block works in real play:
1. The creature/s keeps attacking you. It has to keep choosing you as the target for its attacks or Shield Block is useless unless you invest even more feats and position next to allies. So a person investing heavily in shield blocking but isn't a champion can't block an ally as well as a Champion? Why not?
2. The creature would have to do multiple types of damage, which is also rare. If it does one type of damage, it's going to chew your shield up.
3. You would have to forego all other reaction abilities.
4. You have to invest in the right shield feats.
5. You have to pay a portion of your magic items into a quality shield with high hardness.
6. Then you have to use one action a round to raise the shield, further reducing your damage and abilities to do other actions.
Probably even more limitations to Shield Block to block a single attack per round, maybe two if you get a second reaction. Somehow this seems overpowered?
My game experience in play with shields says otherwise.
How do you counter Shield block?
1. Don't attack the shield user. Shield Block rendered completely inert.
2. Attack the Shield user with multiple other attackers. Not enough reactions to block all attacks.
Easy to bypass Shield Block. So those few times when it does prove useful, I prefer to run Hardness where Shield
So what would happen if monster hit a target for 10 slashing and 7 fire and the target used a shield with hardness 5 to block it? Would the target take a total of 12 damage [(10+7)-5], or 7 damage [(10-5)+(7-5)]?