| 3 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.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.
Hardness is more akin to "resist: OR" or "resist:any" than "resist:all". You reduce the total damage by the amount of hardness regardless of damage types versus reduce each type of damage by the value of resist: all.
...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
7 damage would get through.
1 fire to shield, 1 fire to user.
2 slashing damage to shield, 3 slashing damage to user.
Now you have found yet another lack of clarification in the Hardness rules which should be cleared up. You have a shield block that says physical attack and you have Hardness which in no way says whether it blocks energy, physical, poison, or any other type of damage. So we have to figure it out by doing it in a sensible fashion that fits with what we know of the way PF2 handles damage.
Bottom line is hardness needs a lot more clarification given how damage is handled in PF2. If they do that, then it will help DMs adjudicate shield block and other hardness affecting attacks.
I apply this same rule not just to shield block, but also creatures with Hardness and walls with hardness and any object with hardness. So you need some real heavy damage to batter down a wall or harm a trap you can physically damage and creatures can be pretty nasty too with Hardness.
Hardness should be written as clear as resistance in my opinion because resistance and how damage is handled is the only analogue we have for adjudicating Hardness. Nowhere does hardness clearly state aggregate damage before applying and it doesn't clearly state that it operates like resistance. It just says it reduces damage by this amount while we all know damage from various sources to be tracked separately and not aggregated unless told to do so if a similar type.
Hardness rules are whack and should be rewritten for the purpose of clarity in PF2. Seems almost like Hardness was pulled from PF1, bolted onto to PF2 with no additional guidance while PF2 made it very clear all over that damage of a certain type is its own source and only stacks when we are told it stacks.
It's not even just resist all. It's resistance bludgeoning and resistance cold will neuter a frost mace. If damage is tracked from different sources, then how exactly are we supposed to know Hardness somehow works only against the total damage and all damage from all sources are to be added together before applying it when nothing else in the game works this way.
Hardness definitely should be slotted for some clarification. If it were me, I'd just discard hardness and base everything off the resistance rules and give all objects resistance. Probably work better anyway. Ice should not break form more frost damage, so ice would have frost resistance. Some metals would be more resitant to fire. Hardness is this generic catchall ported over from PF1 that doesn't work great in PF2 with the rules for damage they have in place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No we fundamentally disagree about RAW.
It doesn't help when people conflate physical attack with physical damage. They are not the same.
Hardness is no different to resist all.
Our disagreement hasn't changed. I think raw says that the additional damage type is counted separately. You think, it gets bundled back into a total. The damage procedure in the rules is not tight enough to be conclusive so it remains open.
But from a balance point of view I'm also pretty happy for it to work the same as a Champion's Reaction. At least we don't disagree about how that works.
Now you have found yet another lack of clarification in the Hardness rules which should be cleared up. You have a shield block that says physical attack and you have Hardness which in no way says whether it blocks energy, physical, poison, or any other type of damage.There is no lack of clarification, only looking for holes where there are none. It literally says "ANY damage" in Item Damage rules: "An item can be broken or destroyed if it takes enough damage. Every item has a Hardness value. Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness"
Physical Attack is NOT physical damage. There is nothing in RAW suggesting that. It's written "physical attack" so people don't try to Shield Block spells like Fireball, mental damage like Banshee weil or Dragon Breath as it's not Shield Block function. It's pretty clear thanks to that what you can use Shield Block for, right?
Nowhere does hardness clearly state aggregate damage before applying and it doesn't clearly state that it operates like resistance. It just says it reduces damage by this amount while we all know damage from various sources to be tracked separately and not aggregated unless told to do so if a similar type.It does say in Shield Block "[...]you would take damage"
Damage rules are clear:
1. You roll first all damage
2. You determine damage type
3. You apply RESISTANCE/WEAKNESS/IMMUNITY (Not Hardness!)
4. What is left is DEALING DAMAGE to you. This is where "you would take damage". This is where you Shield Block. After resistance/weakness/immunity is resolved. You don't shield block before steps 1-3.This is last time I will repeat this argument becasue we will go in circles but you are literally trying to force your houserule into mechanic and trying to justify it my deliberate misinterpretation of RAW to suit your narrative. Rules never even slightly mentions anything simillar...
I don't care if you argue your house interpretation of Hardness again. It is you who are trying to force your personal interpretation of hardness on the game with CAPS and such as thought that somehow makes it more true. You are wrong about clarity and have been wrong the entire time.
I am reducing any damage by the amount of the Hardness.
Any damage:
Cold Damage 4 reduced by hardness.
Blunt damage 10 reduced by hardness.
Fire damage 3 reduced by hardness.
Nowhere and I REPEAT (since you like to use caps)...NOWWHERE does it say to aggregate the damage before applying hardness.
Any damage is not a rules term and you are interpreting this as meaning add it all together. Nowhere does it say to do this.
DAMAGE IS BY TYPE..ANY is not a type.
Hardness needs more clarification. You are the one trying to make it seem clearer than it is when on this very forum I have read people who run it like you do and people who run it like I do because it is not a clear rule.
It won't be any clearer no matter how many times you try to write how you think it works when the rules don't say that is how it works. That's just how you do it.
It is not a house rule. It is my interpretation of the Hardness and damage rules absent any further clarification by the designers. Designers add one sentence, "Total all damage of all types before applying hardness" and the problem is resolved. But that sentence is not there and you keep claiming "any damage" means that when it does not.
No we fundamentally disagree about RAW.
It doesn't help when people conflate physical attack with physical damage. They are not the same.
Hardness is no different to resist all.
Our disagreement hasn't changed. I think raw says that the additional damage type is counted separately. You think, it gets bundled back into a total. The damage procedure in the rules is not tight enough to be conclusive so it remains open.But from a balance point of view I'm also pretty happy for it to work the same as a Champion's Reaction. At least we don't disagree about how that works.
Is a touch spell a physical attack? It relies on the caster physically making contact with the target but does non-physical damage. Can a warrior use a shield block to force their shield to take the spell? If not, what's the logical difference between a flaming sword and a touch spell?
------
On a related note, how does a Spellstrike work with shield block? Is it two instances of damage or one?
<snip>
How do you rule touch spells and spell strike into shield block?
<snip>How do you rule touch spells and spell strike into shield block?
Since it is not particularly clear, I rule a touch spell with an attack roll is a physical attack.
I've gone over a bunch of this over time as some of the strange workings of PF2 pop up.
Some things I think are fairly obvious like mental damage is not a physical attack, so shield block is not working. Shield block for sure works against bludgeoning or piercing damage from a weapon.
But would shield block work against poison injected by a stinger? Probably not. Would it work against poison coating a claw? Probably with the poison on the outside of the shield.
PF2 and D&D are games with too many situations for the designers to cover them all. So the designers always leave Rule Zero or whatever they call it in each addition where the DM is left to adjudicate how something works with the group or in a way that makes sense.
Like this blurb:
Ambiguous Rules
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
So something unusual comes up, I try to visualize it in the mind's eye and imagine how it works against something like a shield block. If it looks cool and isn't too powerful, I might allow it to work.
My quick and dirty rule for touch spells is attack roll physical attack as long as it is actually is physical damage I can see being blocked by a shield and a save spell generally not blockable as I imagine it going through the shield like a magical conduit.
I'd love a little more rules clarity on shield block myself, but I can live without it as well. This is still much better than when I was playing 1E and 2E D&D where we had to make a rule up for almost anything that wasn't a simple attack or saving throw before they had skills or rules to handle more situations.
The method I have chosen of applying Hardness inherently handles Spell Strike.
If you handled Hardness by aggregating damage first with Spell Strike, a shield is not lasting long against Spell Strike, maybe a single spell strike and it's done. If it's a critical hit, you would have to have a great shield to survive that hit.
Mainly as the ambiguous rules states, I check if something is too good to be true.
So far Shield Block the way I run it has not changed my players' desire to use shields. If it were an overpowered option, my players would use it. But PF2 has too many powerful attacks and the monsters attack way too often for anyone to think of blocking even all of the damage of a single attack with a shield block as very valuable compared to doing more damage with an AoO or other reaction ability. Shield Block would have to be a great deal better than it is even applying Hardness like Resist All to be considered an overpowered option that players want to use.
Right now Shield Block is an ability I haven't seen used too often because shield users are not dangerous targets and enemies would rather focus on killing more dangerous damage dealers than wasting their attacks on a shield user swinging a one handed weapon doing fairly low damage.
I wish they had made the shield even stronger than it is so that style of combat was interesting again. It hasn't been worthwhile to use a shield since second edition D&D.
The method I have chosen of applying Hardness inherently handles Spell Strike.
If you handled Hardness by aggregating damage first with Spell Strike, a shield is not lasting long against Spell Strike, maybe a single spell strike and it's done. If it's a critical hit, you would have to have a great shield to survive that hit.
Mainly as the ambiguous rules states, I check if something is too good to be true.
So far Shield Block the way I run it has not changed my players' desire to use shields. If it were an overpowered option, my players would use it. But PF2 has too many powerful attacks and the monsters attack way too often for anyone to think of blocking even all of the damage of a single attack with a shield block as very valuable compared to doing more damage with an AoO or other reaction ability. Shield Block would have to be a great deal better than it is even applying Hardness like Resist All to be considered an overpowered option that players want to use.
Right now Shield Block is an ability I haven't seen used too often because shield users are not dangerous targets and enemies would rather focus on killing more dangerous damage dealers than wasting their attacks on a shield user swinging a one handed weapon doing fairly low damage.
I wish they had made the shield even stronger than it is so that style of combat was interesting again. It hasn't been worthwhile to use a shield since second edition D&D.
I would like to point out that I never said that your ruling is overpowered. It isn't, as even with it, shields are good, but not that good. I still fundamentally disagree with it, but not because it is op. Also, depending on the opposition and players, it can actually be a nerf. Your group has decided it is fine, so it is fine.
Side note, I don't think your version deals with spell strike at all, unless I've missed something. Spell strike is still two attacks, their damage isn't combined. You would have to shield block both seperately anyways.
It doesn't help when people conflate physical attack with physical damage. They are not the same.
Is a touch spell a physical attack? It relies on the caster physically making contact with the target but does non-physical damage. Can a warrior use a shield block to force their shield to take the spell? If not, what's the logical difference between a flaming sword and a touch spell?
Something is an attack if it has an attack trait. All the athletics checks count as physical. Anything that does at least some physical damage. Physical damage is described asThe main types of physical damage are bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. So there may be a few other things.
There is no such thing as a touch spell. Except that a range 0 spell does involve touching.On a related note, how does a Spellstrike work with shield block? Is it two instances of damage or one?
It is likely to be multiple instances of damage and have to go though certain types of resistance separately.
The method I have chosen of applying Hardness inherently handles Spell Strike.
If you handled Hardness by aggregating damage first with Spell Strike, a shield is not lasting long against Spell Strike, maybe a single spell strike and it's done. If it's a critical hit, you would have to have a great shield to survive that hit.
Mainly as the ambiguous rules states, I check if something is too good to be true.
So far Shield Block the way I run it has not changed my players' desire to use shields. If it were an overpowered option, my players would use it. But PF2 has too many powerful attacks and the monsters attack way too often for anyone to think of blocking even all of the damage of a single attack with a shield block as very valuable compared to doing more damage with an AoO or other reaction ability. Shield Block would have to be a great deal better than it is even applying Hardness like Resist All to be considered an overpowered option that players want to use.
Right now Shield Block is an ability I haven't seen used too often because shield users are not dangerous targets and enemies would rather focus on killing more dangerous damage dealers than wasting their attacks on a shield user swinging a one handed weapon doing fairly low damage.
I wish they had made the shield even stronger than it is so that style of combat was interesting again. It hasn't been worthwhile to use a shield since second edition D&D.
I would like to point out that I never said that your ruling is overpowered. It isn't, as even with it, shields are good, but not that good. I still fundamentally disagree with it, but not because it is op. Also, depending on the opposition and players, it can actually be a nerf. Your group has decided it is fine, so it is fine.
Side note, I don't think your version deals with spell strike at all, unless I've missed something. Spell strike is still two attacks, their damage isn't combined. You would have to shield block both...
It deals with Spell Strike because it already doesn't aggregate damage against Hardness. Does Spellstrike say it is two separate attacks?
How do you run Hardness against Spellstrike?
Spellstrike is a single attack requiring a single attack roll that has subordinate actions that combine for damage. So a Spellstrike is a single attack. I would run it that way.
It would make little sense to let the shield block the weapon but somehow not block the spell damage. It turns a spell into a melee attack is how it seems to run.
But once again, you've found another ruling that isn't clear and you can run either way. I'm going run things like that in a way that makes sense. To Spellstrike is a single attack that combines two types of effects into a single attack.
Just to highlight this as this is taken from the damage section of the general rules.
2. You determine damage type
This seems to indicate all damage has a type. ANY isn't a type. Nowhere in that damage list does it mention Hardness or adding all the damage before Hardness. It doesn't mention Hardness in Step 4 either. Not mentioned anywhere in the damage list.
Yet Hardness specifically states to reduce damage by the amount of Hardness. So I do Step 2 checking for Types of Damage, then reduce by Hardness in Step 3 as that seems the step where Hardness should be.
There is no Step 5 on that list. There is no mention of Hardness in Step 4. So still not sure why anyone feels sure about Hardness.
The only thing I'm sure is Hardness could use more clarity even if it just tacked on sentence saying, "Total all damage of all types before applying Hardness." Though I'd still prefer a more clear ruling like types of damage and such different materials are resistant to or what types of damage completely ignore Hardness.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would make little sense to let the shield block the weapon but somehow not block the spell damage. It turns a spell into a melee attack is how it seems to run.
Doesn't that cause issues with shields breaking really easily? At level 5, a minor sturdy shield has hardness 8 and a BT of 32, and a str-based magus with 14 int spell striking with gouging claw would be dealing 2d12+6+3d6, which is 29.5 average damage - after hardness, a full 2/3rds of the BT, and likely giving you one more attack to block against if you hadn't already blocked.
It deals with Spell Strike because it already doesn't aggregate damage against Hardness. Does Spellstrike say it is two separate attacks?
How do you run Hardness against Spellstrike?
Spellstrike is a single attack requiring a single attack roll that has subordinate actions that combine for damage. So a Spellstrike is a single attack. I would run it that way.
It would make little sense to let the shield block the weapon but somehow not block the spell damage. It turns a spell into a melee attack is how it seems to run.
But once again, you've found another ruling that isn't clear and you can run either way. I'm going run things like that in a way that makes sense. To Spellstrike is a single attack that combines two types of effects into a single attack.
I always imagine it like a two-stage attack. Your sword hits the enemies' body, cutting into it and releasing the spell. Or like a HESH round, sort of.
RAW it is two attacks, you just use the same roll for both, nothing more. One of the clearer indicators of this is "The spell takes effect after the Strike deals damage". The Eldritch Archer and Beast Gunner are a bit clearer on that from the start.
You resolve both seperately, so resistances apply fully to both, for example. Same with Hardness. You don't combine anything beyond the attack roll, if for no other reason than it doesn't say you do. Everything else has to spell it out as well.
I would also rule it as requiring two seperate reactions, as that seems to be the RAW. It is a bit silly, as you pointed out, but I can live with that. The one thing I would do is allow the spell to be blocked even if you couldn't RAW. That'd be a bit too silly. As Arcalan pointed out, that is also in the shield user's best interest.
It has never been an issue, though, so my views could change if it ever becomes one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am happy to see folks run it however works best at their table, but this is my understanding. I see the indicator in the Trigger for Shield Block - "...you would take damage from a physical attack." How do you know you would take damage from a physical attack? Only by completing Steps 1-3 of the damage calculation process. That means that Hardness has to be applied in Step 4 after immunities, resistances, weaknesses, etc have all been calculated. So Hardness is applied only once to the total damage left over.
I am reducing any damage by the amount of the Hardness."Ambiguous Rules: Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed."
I can agree that Hardness should require more clear definitions, but even if there are doubts I like to refer to the Ambiguous Rules then where if one is too good, it's probably wrong. Making Hardness like Resistance is just too good for something that pretty much anyone (especially casters) can have. Shields don't need anymore buffs, they shouldn't last long (hence in first place their Hardness/HP/Broken mechanic) and them not being as good as Resistance gives more power to sources of Resistance or everyone would just try to run with Shields all the time to way too massive damage reduction. Not to mention how broken Tangible Dream Amp Shield would be with Hardness as Resistance. Definitely above balance curve of PF2e. Also it would create issues with person that has Rise Shield is being targeted by Champion Reaction, where if Hardness was working as Resistance you can only have one source of Resistance, the higher one, so it would be either Hardness or Champion Reaction. Becasue Hardness is not Resistance and not included in Step 3 of Damage rules: such person can first get Champion Resistance to reduce incoming damage and then on top of that use Shield Block to further reduce total damage left by Hardness, which is way more logical and works better than cramming Hardness and Resistance in same Step 3 of Damage rules as then one source of reduction would be made obsolete. Which is another argument in my opinion why Hardness is not supposed to work as Resistance.
In short: houserule of treating Hardness like Resistance would cause way more gameplay issues and rules overlapping....
I don't keep any rule changes until I test them. It isn't "too good to be true." In my opinion, shield block against aggregate damage is too bad to be true. It rips the shield apart quickly. It's why I decided to interpret it as I read someone on this forum doing.
I wish I could remember who said to run Hardness as Resist All because it isn't my idea. I would give credit to that person if I could remember who posted it.
I read their post and argument for Hardness. I thought Shield Block is really sucking right now and shields are getting wrecked way too easily in battle as hard as some of these creatures hit, so I decided to try how they were doing it. It didn't make shields more desirable, but it made them last longer and shine a bit brighter sometimes. So I went with it as I had no clear argument against their decision to run Hardness as Resist All.
If Shield Block is working as you expect it to work running it as you run it, I say keep doing it that way. Shield Block fell in that too bad to be true category in our games and I wanted to give them a slight boost. Even running it as I'm doing, Shields, Hardness, and Shield Block could use more work given how damage works and how hard things hit in PF2. Even the general idea of a Physical Attack could be clarified if you ask me. But I don't imagine Shield Block and shields get used enough for Paizo designers to care that much for small issues that some may have with the ability.
It would make little sense to let the shield block the weapon but somehow not block the spell damage. It turns a spell into a melee attack is how it seems to run.Doesn't that cause issues with shields breaking really easily? At level 5, a minor sturdy shield has hardness 8 and a BT of 32, and a str-based magus with 14 int spell striking with gouging claw would be dealing 2d12+6+3d6, which is 29.5 average damage - after hardness, a full 2/3rds of the BT, and likely giving you one more attack to block against if you hadn't already blocked.
Does it maintain that strength across levels as spells and striking runes come in?
We've all seen Spellstrike do some nutty critical hits too. Would you sacrifice your shield to stay standing for another round on a crit?
Even the general idea of a Physical Attack could be clarified if you ask meAbove your post I gave quotes from Reflexive Shield Feat and Dragonslayer's Shield descriptions which in my opinion could prove that Shield Block is only blocking physical damage and physical attack means melee or range attack doing S,B or P damage.
So Hardness is applied only once to the total damage left over.Though I was of same opinion at first, take a look at quotes I provided in my post below yours and tell me what you think. In my opinion they clearly indicate that vanilla shields (non magical/special) are most likely only able to Shield Block physical damage, not energy damage type.
The joy of PF2 where contradictions are spread all over the book. You could be right for what they intended or what one writer intended and another overlooked.
To me the Hardness and shield block rules don't fit with the way they built resistance and are the proverbial stuck cog in the system. Fortunately, not many of my players use shields, so it doesn't come up too often.
I'll probably rewrite much of it to make it work better. I'd prefer they move objects to a resistance/weakness system which would give them more flexibility and precision in material design as well as work in better with the currently written rules.
If there is one section that needs serious work in the PF2 CRB it's Hardness, Objects, and precious materials section. That is a system that feels ported over from PF1 without much thought put into all the interactions or the worth of the system. We could have another whole disagreement thread about low grade, standard grave, and high grade materials and the worth of paying for them or the cost of ammunition fired from a potency rune bow that would go on and on.
Wish Hardness, shield block, and ammunition cost for materials was on their list for some clarity for this remastered edition. Clear a whole bunch up. I'd just like to see precious materials made worth paying for at this point.
Given all we talked about, I'll probably write some more clarification for Hardness. The rules seem all over the place for what they might have intended and what came out.
My goal will be to make Hardness more internally consistent and to make Shield Block work as it should in terms of order of operations and the mind's eye.
Also sorry to all shield lovers, but I will throw another spanner in the works when it comes to Hardness: it seems you can only block physical damage RAW.
Read the description of Reflexive Shield Feat:
"You can use your shield to fend off the worst of area effects and other damage. When you Raise your Shield, you gain your shield's circumstance bonus to Reflex saves. If you have the Shield Block reaction, damage you take as a result of a Reflex save can trigger that reaction, even if the damage isn't physical damage."
Which suggest also that Hardness is even unable to block anythig but physical damage in first place. We can go even further and check a Dragonslayer's Shield description which says:
"The shield has resistance 10 against the damage type corresponding to the type of dragon whose hide was used in its creation; this applies after reducing the damage for Hardness, so when you use Shield Block, the dragonslayer’s shield takes 18 less damage from attacks of that damage type. You can use Shield Block against attacks that deal damage of that type."
So first of all we can clearly see that Shield can have Resistance. That means that in no way Hardness RAW/RAI works like Resistance as it's like saying that Resistance can have Resistance... come on.
But take a look at the last sentence of Dragonslayer's Shield description: "You can use Shield Block against attacks that deal damage of that type"
Which means that normal shield is unable to block in first place any other damage than physical damage.
So not only Hardness is not Resistance but both Reflexive Shield and Dragonslayer's Shield suggests that the only type of damage you can block with it is B,P or S. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense for Dragonslayer's Shield to state that you can Shield Block a specific dragon type damage if any shield could block all energy damage types.
Hardness needs some real work. As far as I know Hardness on creatures or objects makes no designation of type of damage. It says any damage.
Now these feats and items are contradicting the general Hardness rules which even if you add all the damage together doesn't say it doesn't work against any damage meaning any type.
|
|
It would make little sense to let the shield block the weapon but somehow not block the spell damage. It turns a spell into a melee attack is how it seems to run.Doesn't that cause issues with shields breaking really easily? At level 5, a minor sturdy shield has hardness 8 and a BT of 32, and a str-based magus with 14 int spell striking with gouging claw would be dealing 2d12+6+3d6, which is 29.5 average damage - after hardness, a full 2/3rds of the BT, and likely giving you one more attack to block against if you hadn't already blocked.Does it maintain that strength across levels as spells and striking runes come in?
We've all seen Spellstrike do some nutty critical hits too. Would you sacrifice your shield to stay standing for another round on a crit?
At level 16 when you'd get an upgrade to your sturdy shield, an on-level STR magus' cantrip spellstrike would be 3d12+6(g. weapon spec)+6(str)+4(int)+8d6(8th level gouging claw) = 63.5 average damage, goes to 46.5 average damage after hardness, which is 68% of the BT of 68. It does maintain that damage; if they're spellstriking with a spell slot at that level, it'd be 3d12+10+9d12 for 88 average damage, hardness down to 71, which still breaks the shield entirely on average.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does Spellstrike say it is two separate attacks?
Yes, that's literally what the ability is.
that has subordinate actions that combine for damage
Not correct, spellstrike actually notably lacks the 'combine damage for' language that abilities like flurry have.
Does Spellstrike say it is two separate attacks?Yes, that's literally what the ability is.
that has subordinate actions that combine for damageNot correct, spellstrike actually notably lacks the 'combine damage for' language that abilities like flurry have.
It lacks the combine for purposes of resistance.
But it isn't two attacks like Flurry either requiring two attack rolls. It's one combined attack with subordinate actions. You cast the spell as you swing, if you miss the spell is wasted. I don't even think you can hold the charge like PF1.
Regardless, I'd run it as a single attack with Shield Block absorbing both hits, though to be honest it has never come up due to the lack of shields being used due to their general weakness.
You could be right for what they intended or what one writer intended and another overlooked.Ok, I finally found confirmation from developers what was intended. We were arguing here left and right while the answer was... in freaking FAQ :D https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq
So from Pathfinder Core Rulebook Clarifications (4th Printing):
"Pages 266 (Clarification): Can I use Shield Block if I take physical damage that didn't come from an attack?
Shield Block can only be used against physical damage from attacks, since non-attack effects can't trigger the Shield Block. For instance, if you walk over a square of hazardous terrain that deals piercing damage to you, having your shield raised doesn't help you, nor does it help if you need to make a Reflex save against a spell that deals bludgeoning damage. Some abilities let you use Shield Block with other triggers, as seen in the shield spell and the fighter's Reflexive Shield feat, but these exceptions are noted. Also note the 4th printing errata to spellguard shield (page 588) allows it to apply in this way."
I think that confirms RAI of developers. Now we can houserule away.
So the shield doesn't have Resistance All it has Resistance Physical? Is that the implication? Exactly why I think Hardness should be discarded as it doesn't work well with the very rules they wrote.
Hardness is had by objects including animated objects and nowhere does it list animated objects or objects as only reducing damage from physical attacks.
The way the PF2 designers have chosen to write these small contradictory rules in several parts of the book is extremely bad rules design. They are lucky not that many people find using a shield worthwhile or this would be a much bigger headache.
What exactly does this mean for something like a corrosive rune? If the implication is that hardness only works against physical attacks, does that mean a corrosive rune blows right through armor hardness like plate armor?
How exactly is hardness working now with this ruling?
Maybe I missed it, in which case I apologize, but one situation where Power Attack is absolutely worth having is during turns when you need to move. If you have to Step or Stride, you can't use Exacting Strike, and PA is better than just attacking twice in my opinion because of MAP. Just something to throw out there.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words if you remove PA, then the "big weapon" fighters get absolutely ZILCH.
Power attack should be a feat that works EVEN BETTER with big weapons.
On the other hand, two-handed fighter is a highly effective, straight forward staple build. It's excellent, period.
You mention double slice, hunted shot, and twin takedown as bread and butter feats, but is that actually a good thing?
To reframe the complaint in another way: dual wielding requires a special feat to even exist as a combat style, you are mandated to take a feat like that to even function at all.
The two-handed fighter just works out of the box.
So basically, the two-handed build gets an extra feat for free. That's a benefit, not a limitation or downside.
Double Slice is so action intensive it is usually all you do as a Dual weapon fighter. It gets incredibly boring. You often either miss one of the attacks or have to move not allowing you to use nearly any other two-weapon fighting feat. If you're not using a two-handed weapon as a fighter, you're role-playing and you won't feel the power of the fighter.
Double Slice is so action intensive it is usually all you do as a Dual weapon fighter. It gets incredibly boring. You often either miss one of the attacks or have to move not allowing you to use nearly any other two-weapon fighting feat. If you're not using a two-handed weapon as a fighter, you're role-playing and you won't feel the power of the fighter.
While I agree that the two-weapon fighter (and I would add the ranged fighter) gets boring pretty quickly, I disagree that you have to take a two-handed weapon to get a different result. The fighter has at least two other general build paths that are really interesting - the open hand fighter and the maneuver fighter. Both engage with the 3-action economy very well. There is also the shield fighter, but I don't like shields, so someone else has to comment on that part.
Brutish Shove.
And of course the best damage dice for weapons and most Reach weapons.
Poor big weapons Fighters.[/i]
Even if we limit it to 1st level feats as Ouatcheur has done, there is still Sudden Charge and (to a much, much lesser extent) Combat Assessment. Particularly activities that only allow for one Strike heavily favor two-handed weapons due to their increased damage.
I have only seen the two-weapon fighters, fighter archers, and the two-hander fighter.
From what I can tell the open hand fighter might be a decent control type of fighter and a maneuver fighter can be done with a two-handed weapon using the Trip God Maneuver with knockdown.
Two weapon fighter was a huge disappointment for the player. He took dual weapon warrior and wanted to use some of those feats like Dual Weapon Rend. But round after round he would either miss an attack not allowing the rend or have to move using his up his third action on a move rather than being able to rend.
So he ended up Double Slicing over and over again.
I should include the fighter archer as effective. Fighter archer is very good, especially if you take Eldritch Archer and pick up Debilitating Shot. Double and Triple shot are pretty pointless, but Eldritch Archer with a fighter and Debilitating shot are brutal with the improved accuracy.
In other words if you remove PA, then the "big weapon" fighters get absolutely ZILCH.
Power attack should be a feat that works EVEN BETTER with big weapons.
On the other hand, two-handed fighter is a highly effective, straight forward staple build. It's excellent, period.
You mention double slice, hunted shot, and twin takedown as bread and butter feats, but is that actually a good thing?
To reframe the complaint in another way: dual wielding requires a special feat to even exist as a combat style, you are mandated to take a feat like that to even function at all.
The two-handed fighter just works out of the box.
So basically, the two-handed build gets an extra feat for free. That's a benefit, not a limitation or downside.
This, you don't need a skill that turns your turns into a static MMORPG rotation when you can just get Sudden Charge, the best level 1 melee feat in the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even open handed fighters can do 2 handed damage (+ more!) with Dual Handed Assault (Once/round vs Flourish)
This, you don't need a skill that turns your turns into a static MMORPG rotation when you can just get Sudden Charge, the best level 1 melee feat in the game.
I'd argue that title goes to Snagging Strike. It's a straight upgrade to Strike that can potentially give you and the entire rest of your party flat-footed on that enemy. Sure, your own damage will not be quite as spectacular, but if you have a teammates that can capitalize on that... boy howdy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It costs you an empty hand. That hand could have generated more damage by wielding a second weapon or a bigger weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It costs you an empty hand. That hand could have generated more damage by wielding a second weapon or a bigger weapon.
And if you have, say, a rogue and a gunslinger waiting in the wings, that effective +2 you are giving them will greatly exceed that difference. Any party members that do decent damage with attacks will do, really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could. But you are assuming they need that help. Normally Rogues amd other melee martials don't. But Gunslingers, archers typically do. But it varies. Snagging Strike is useful. But it depends on the party make up. It is defintely not the best.
I had a fighter with snagging strike and a gunslinger with fake out in one party, turned out to be more interactive and engaging than double slicing,