| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It will be a rune to upgrade other shields Hardness/HP/BT, but NOT to the level of Sturdy Shields. Sturdy Shields will still have highest H/HP/BT.Keep in mind that the developers have stated that Sturdy Shields will still be the pinnacle of shield blocking options. The new runes (although I believe they're using another name than rune) will go a good ways to opening up other options, but Sturdy Shield will still be the best one for shield block.But it will be a rune so you can upgrade other types of magical shields right?
That sucks. So everyone once again pushed into Sturdy Shields to make shield block work, so any cool magical shields get tossed to the side in favor of Sturdy Shields to make blocking worthwhile.
I'm going to stick with better weapons and a casting archetype for those rare times I want to erect a shield.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It will be a rune to upgrade other shields Hardness/HP/BT, but NOT to the level of Sturdy Shields. Sturdy Shields will still have highest H/HP/BT.Keep in mind that the developers have stated that Sturdy Shields will still be the pinnacle of shield blocking options. The new runes (although I believe they're using another name than rune) will go a good ways to opening up other options, but Sturdy Shield will still be the best one for shield block.But it will be a rune so you can upgrade other types of magical shields right?That sucks. So everyone once again pushed into Sturdy Shields to make shield block work, so any cool magical shields get tossed to the side in favor of Sturdy Shields to make blocking worthwhile.
I'm going to stick with better weapons and a casting archetype for those rare times I want to erect a shield.
Better to wait for the actual rules to come out before passing judgement IMO.
It will be a rune to upgrade other shields Hardness/HP/BT, but NOT to the level of Sturdy Shields. Sturdy Shields will still have highest H/HP/BT.Keep in mind that the developers have stated that Sturdy Shields will still be the pinnacle of shield blocking options. The new runes (although I believe they're using another name than rune) will go a good ways to opening up other options, but Sturdy Shield will still be the best one for shield block.But it will be a rune so you can upgrade other types of magical shields right?That sucks. So everyone once again pushed into Sturdy Shields to make shield block work, so any cool magical shields get tossed to the side in favor of Sturdy Shields to make blocking worthwhile.
I'm going to stick with better weapons and a casting archetype for those rare times I want to erect a shield.
Depend, probably we will get something like these:
Comparing them with lvl 19 Sturdy Shield (Supreme) (Hardness 20, HP 160, and BT 80) and lvl 16 Sturdy Shield (Major) Hardness 17, HP 136, and BT 68, them main difference is that these high-lvl non sturdy shield get about half of the HP of equivalent sturdy shield with a bit high level or little less hardness with more HP and a higher level. I expect that shield runes would be something like this just a bit weaker or some level higher than and equivalent sturdy shields.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like there's an awful of lot people saying "my actual play experience over levels x-y was great and the shield was impactful" and the counter is "the math says shields aren't worth it" which seems a little disingenuous. White room math is all well and good and can absolutely help with evaluating options, but actual real play experience from multiple people over a huge range of levels is at least as useful, if not more so since y'know that's where the shield is actually being used.
I think that a big part of where they diverge is that white room math relies heavily on assuming average damage, to make the numbers easy to work with, while effective shield use is pretty significantly impacted by the variance in damage, and by how much extra mileage you get from blocking the smaller hits in actual play.
It feels like there's an awful of lot people saying "my actual play experience over levels x-y was great and the shield was impactful" and the counter is "the math says shields aren't worth it" which seems a little disingenuous. White room math is all well and good and can absolutely help with evaluating options, but actual real play experience from multiple people over a huge range of levels is at least as useful, if not more so since y'know that's where the shield is actually being used.
My actual experience with them is they are good at lower levels and bad at higher levels if you run them as aggregate damage hardness.
If you run hardness like resist all allowing the shield's hardness to work against all types of physical and energy damage, they are worthwhile for classes that can force the attacker to pay a cost for not attacking the shield user like a champion or a class like a druid who doesn't have a better option for a single action and reaction.
A fighter is usually far better off setting up AoOs with a heavy weapon.
That is my actual play experience.
Why?
1. The shield is easy to avoid and the sword and board style is lower damage, so even low intelligence enemies will focus their attacks on higher damage soft targets hurting them more.
Without the Champion's reaction to force the creature to make a choice, there isn't a good reason to attack the shield user.
2. The shield does not block enough damage often enough to justify the lower damage weapon and fighting style.
I like shields on champions and monks and some druids. Not on fighters or other martials.
Would Antagonize for the Swashbuckler count towards that? Although I presume that they wouldn't make good tanks, given that they probably need their actions for something else than raising their bucklers (with the new rune, of course). Sadly the DEX 14 requirement for the Swashbuckler archetype makes it hard for a Champion to get that class feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like there's an awful of lot people saying "my actual play experience over levels x-y was great and the shield was impactful" and the counter is "the math says shields aren't worth it" which seems a little disingenuous. White room math is all well and good and can absolutely help with evaluating options, but actual real play experience from multiple people over a huge range of levels is at least as useful, if not more so since y'know that's where the shield is actually being used.
There's no opposition between experience and theorycrafting. Both are useful, and I will even say equally useful because they are complementary: you can't formulate knowledge without a combination of both. Theory without experience is purely white room but experience without theory is not knowledge.
Also, I have read everything and haven't found that people were using theory to disprove shields. Personally, I've played with a lot of shield users and have found them less impactful than non-shield users. They fail at raising attention and end up being ignored too often while the whole party suffers from their lack of damage output. The only shield users that I find ok are those who have available hands to wear a shield and only Raise their shield when it's useful. For anyone else, including Champions from my experience, the result is a net loss.
Now, Shields "work". Having the most optimized character is not everyone's goal. If you want to play a sword and board character, you'll be fine doing it, your shield will efficiently block attacks from level 1 to 20 and you will feel super tanky (Shields, with the proper support, are the best and nearly only way to make a character super tanky, a martial with a Shield will outlive a Paladin without one).
It also depends on what you consider useful or good too. I don't consider blocking 25% of the damage very good at higher level with both the shield and the individual taking the same amount of damage in essence doubling up on the damage requiring repairs and healing. Some people might feel perfectly fine with that percentage of damage blocked.
I feel like a shield block should block in the 50 to 70 percent damage range across all levels for a single hit. If you're going to do less damage to use a shield, it should block a spectacular amount of damage and last quite a while. A shield specialist should feel as cool and powerful as a maul fighter or a sneak attack rogue when their schtick is used.
It feels like there's an awful of lot people saying "my actual play experience over levels x-y was great and the shield was impactful" and the counter is "the math says shields aren't worth it" which seems a little disingenuous. White room math is all well and good and can absolutely help with evaluating options, but actual real play experience from multiple people over a huge range of levels is at least as useful, if not more so since y'know that's where the shield is actually being used.
Its normal once that each player gameplay is different that's expected different opinions that's not being analised in theorycraft.
If your main focus is to make a char that rarely falls probably have a shield is your best option no matter if plan to be a tanker or just survive. But this obviously reduce your DPR efficiency, so if you want to focus in damage probably shields isn't to you. It's simple like that.
About theorycraft me and most other players that warn about shields also explained that the we saw shield limitations in practice too and no one is saying "the shields are bad" (except from Kyle) just that shield sacrifices a good amount of your damage output specially in higher levels when you get 3-4 weapon damage dices and that shield alone isn't enough to make you tank you will need to have something that get more attention from the opponents like the champions reactions or some maneuvers.
IMO theorycraft in PF2 is one of the most precise theorycraft that I saw in a TTRPG, usually its meet with most practical experience and when don't meet is because some important factor wasn't included.
Also shields and shield block general feat are good options for ranged spellcasters that for many reason are fighting in a small room or facing opponents with ranged weapons. You will still diminishing your damage output being unable to Sustain a Spell or casting an one-action spell or attacking with a bow with your last action but you will get a very welcome AC bonus and damage reduction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It also depends on what you consider useful or good too. I don't consider blocking 25% of the damage very good at higher level with both the shield and the individual taking the same amount of damage in essence doubling up on the damage requiring repairs and healing. Some people might feel perfectly fine with that percentage of damage blocked.
I feel like a shield block should block in the 50 to 70 percent damage range across all levels for a single hit. If you're going to do less damage to use a shield, it should block a spectacular amount of damage and last quite a while. A shield specialist should feel as cool and powerful as a maul fighter or a sneak attack rogue when their schtick is used.
The shield does block enough damage. It is just only good for a couple of hits. But that is reasonable for most fights. Yes it costs time to repair but shields are cheap. There is little reason you can't have a couple spare in a bag of holding if you don't want to take the time to repair them now.
I think the main issue is that it is cheap in terms of feats to get everything you need. Yes you will have more powerful reactions, but shield block is one of the most frequently reliable and useful reactions there is. It is a good default.
|
|
It feels like there's an awful of lot people saying "my actual play experience over levels x-y was great and the shield was impactful" and the counter is "the math says shields aren't worth it" which seems a little disingenuous. White room math is all well and good and can absolutely help with evaluating options, but actual real play experience from multiple people over a huge range of levels is at least as useful, if not more so since y'know that's where the shield is actually being used.
There is a problem though. How can you compare what happens when a player plays a shield-using PC and when the same player plays a similar PC but one who does not use a shield, during the exact same encounters ?
The answer is simple : you cannot.
Only white room theory aka calculating the numbers can help with this.
There is a similar problem with people playing casters that heal instead of dealing damage. Since they are not contributing to damage, the opponents last longer and inflict more damage that then needs healing.
I very recently witnessed an extreme example of this : a Cleric that puts Heal in their spell slots in addition to their Healing Font.
The player loves playing healers. Their line of reasoning is that there is no such thing as too much healing.
Which becomes true because they are not contributing to killing enemies faster, so PCs receive damage that could have been avoided in a faster fight. And they then need more healing.
It also depends on what you consider useful or good too. I don't consider blocking 25% of the damage very good at higher level with both the shield and the individual taking the same amount of damage in essence doubling up on the damage requiring repairs and healing. Some people might feel perfectly fine with that percentage of damage blocked.
I feel like a shield block should block in the 50 to 70 percent damage range across all levels for a single hit. If you're going to do less damage to use a shield, it should block a spectacular amount of damage and last quite a while. A shield specialist should feel as cool and powerful as a maul fighter or a sneak attack rogue when their schtick is used.
The shield does block enough damage. It is just only good for a couple of hits. But that is reasonable for most fights. Yes it costs time to repair but shields are cheap. There is little reason you can't have a couple spare in a bag of holding if you don't want to take the time to repair them now.
I think the main issue is that it is cheap in terms of feats to get everything you need. Yes you will have more powerful reactions, but shield block is one of the most frequently reliable and useful reactions there is. It is a good default.
Cheap in terms of feat resources because in terms of money they are pretty expensive!
It also depends on what you consider useful or good too. I don't consider blocking 25% of the damage very good at higher level with both the shield and the individual taking the same amount of damage in essence doubling up on the damage requiring repairs and healing. Some people might feel perfectly fine with that percentage of damage blocked.
I feel like a shield block should block in the 50 to 70 percent damage range across all levels for a single hit. If you're going to do less damage to use a shield, it should block a spectacular amount of damage and last quite a while. A shield specialist should feel as cool and powerful as a maul fighter or a sneak attack rogue when their schtick is used.
The shield does block enough damage. It is just only good for a couple of hits. But that is reasonable for most fights. Yes it costs time to repair but shields are cheap. There is little reason you can't have a couple spare in a bag of holding if you don't want to take the time to repair them now.
I think the main issue is that it is cheap in terms of feats to get everything you need. Yes you will have more powerful reactions, but shield block is one of the most frequently reliable and useful reactions there is. It is a good default.
High level shields are not cheap.
Whether they block enough damage is based on an opinion. I explained mine which is I think they block too low of an amount of damage. It should be in the 50 to 70 percent rage for the expenditure of an action and a reaction that requires at least one attack to go your way.
The way you're speaking is like the shield is some level 1 item or something that you keep a bunch lying about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A back up sturdy shield, a rank or 2 back from the best shield you can get is usually only 3 to 5 hardness behind and a 10th of the cost. Having some spares in a bag of holding (I wonder what is happening to those?) is pretty trivial. It won’t be quite as good, but it will be enough better than nothing that it could effect what enemies do.
A back up sturdy shield, a rank or 2 back from the best shield you can get is usually only 3 to 5 hardness behind and a 10th of the cost. Having some spares in a bag of holding (I wonder what is happening to those?) is pretty trivial. It won’t be quite as good, but it will be enough better than nothing that it could effect what enemies do.
If I don't think an equivalent level shield block is worth the drop in damage, I certainly won't be carrying a backup that will do even less.
It's like you're encouraging the use of the shield just because you want to do while not considering in any way its performance against alternative options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
High level shields are not cheap.Whether they block enough damage is based on an opinion. I explained mine which is I think they block too low of an amount of damage. It should be in the 50 to 70 percent rage for the expenditure of an action and a reaction that requires at least one attack to go your way.
The way you're speaking is like the shield is some level 1 item or something that you keep a bunch lying about.
No that is not the way I'm speaking. That is the way you are reading me! That problem is in your perception not in my words. But even if it was in my words, it is still up to you to find a reasonable way to read them, not try to misinterpret them.
Shields are cheap. Why because they often show up in loot and because you don't have to have the bleeding edge shield all the time. For sure the best shield is the best shield, but a grade down is perfectly fine. It will just take one less block. The main function of a shield is the +2 circumstance bonus to AC anyway.
High level shields are not cheap.Whether they block enough damage is based on an opinion. I explained mine which is I think they block too low of an amount of damage. It should be in the 50 to 70 percent rage for the expenditure of an action and a reaction that requires at least one attack to go your way.
The way you're speaking is like the shield is some level 1 item or something that you keep a bunch lying about.
No that is not the way I'm speaking. That is the way you are reading me! That problem is in your perception not in my words. But even if it was in my words, it is still up to you to find a reasonable way to read them, not try to misinterpret them.
Shields are cheap. Why because they often show up in loot and because you don't have to have the bleeding edge shield all the time. For sure the best shield is the best shield, but a grade down is perfectly fine. It will just take one less block. The main function of a shield is the +2 circumstance bonus to AC anyway.
This thread is about shield block.
High level shields are not cheap. When you take something as a backup, you take away from the treasure of other characters. People don't like that much. We sell almost everything not used for half-price and don't really enjoy unused items sitting on characters for backup when gold in APs is generally low to start with.
Sure, for most characters the +2 AC is the main reason to use a shield and not the capacity to block.
This idea of use a lower grade version of sturdy shield simply doesn't make too much sense due the hardness reduction even knowing that a lower grade is 1/3-1/4 of the price.
Also is pretty easy and fast to repair a shield with Quick Repair feat or using some Mending Lattice (the only CRB Talisman that really worth IMO), this ensures that shield ends being useful in every battle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shields seem kind of less than stellar on Paladins. Like a class that has low damage per hit but gets extra MAPless attacks via its frequent reactions gets the most value out of maximizing its damage die, especially when two-handers are on the table.
Shields are a better choice on characters with high static damage bonuses, characters that naturally have a free hand, or characters who don't have great 2h options anyways.
Slap a shield on a barbarian, monk, or rogue instead. They'll be a lot happier.
The main function of a shield is the +2 circumstance bonus to AC anyway.
This.
Blocking is just the cherry on top. Useful if you have it, but you can live without it.
Anecdotal evidence: In a Age of Ashes game, my Fighter started out with a shield(boss) and short sword doing respectable damage with Double Slice and getting quite a few extra HP out of shield blocking.
By level 4 our Paladin had his shield companion, but we had a ranged rogue in the party. So my guy fell in love with the Cinderclaw gauntlet and used Knockdown and Combat Grab to make the Rogue happy.
Still, in fights against big bads, he would fight with shield and gauntlet rather then sword and gauntlet, because staying up to do the debuffing worked better then the extra damage he could have done with a sword. Damage came from the Paladin and his reaction (also Intimidating Strike) and the Rogue's sneak attack.
But blocking 7th level attacks with a lv. 0 steel shield is just not viable most of the time, so better to use the +2 AC and save the reaction for AoOs on tripped foes.
Of course, with a Sturdy shield of his own, he could use shield blocks more reliably again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shields seem kind of less than stellar on Paladins. Like a class that has low damage per hit but gets extra MAPless attacks via its frequent reactions gets the most value out of maximizing its damage die, especially when two-handers are on the table.
Shields are a better choice on characters with high static damage bonuses, characters that naturally have a free hand, or characters who don't have great 2h options anyways.
Slap a shield on a barbarian, monk, or rogue instead. They'll be a lot happier.
Shields are best on the champion in my experience. They have a good shield feats and a means to boosts shields with divine ally boosting hit points and break threshold. Shield Paragon is not a bad level 20 feat where raising the shield is a free action.
You can really make a shield shine on a champion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anecdotal evidence: In a Age of Ashes game, my Fighter started out with a shield(boss) and short sword doing respectable damage with Double Slice and getting quite a few extra HP out of shield blocking.
I just raise this point as it's a common mistake: As you can't have the Fighter proficiency on both the Shield and the Short Sword, it's better to just attack with the Sword instead of using Double Slice.
Shields are best on the champion in my experience. They have a good shield feats and a means to boosts shields with divine ally boosting hit points and break threshold. Shield Paragon is not a bad level 20 feat where raising the shield is a free action.
You can really make a shield shine on a champion.
You still lack ways of raising attention. A Champion with a shield who has to use an action to Raise it does 40% of the damage output of a proper martial (slightly more with a Paladin). So enemies just ignore them and their shield becomes useless.
You still lack ways of raising attention. A Champion with a shield who has to use an action to Raise it does 40% of the damage output of a proper martial (slightly more with a Paladin). So enemies just ignore them and their shield becomes useless.
I was fiddling around with a Redeemer Champion, archetyped to Swashbuckler for the Antagonize feat. Seemed like a pretty good case of being able to make enemies want to hit you, although the initial constitution is pretty low, due to the DEX 14 requirement.
Redeemers just by themselves also do make enemies want to hit them, instead of their companions, since hitting their companions triggers the Glimpse of Redemption reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just raise this point as it's a common mistake: As you can't have the Fighter proficiency on both the Shield and the Short Sword, it's better to just attack with the Sword instead of using Double Slice.
To get it to work requires something like Viking Weapon Specialist or Elven Weapon Expertise.
You still lack ways of raising attention. A Champion with a shield who has to use an action to Raise it does 40% of the damage output of a proper martial (slightly more with a Paladin). So enemies just ignore them and their shield becomes useless.
Damage is not everything. Discounting a Champion because they aren't a Striker is narrow thinking. Champions have enough tricks to protect the party. Including positioning, athletics, and their reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anecdotal evidence: In a Age of Ashes game, my Fighter started out with a shield(boss) and short sword doing respectable damage with Double Slice and getting quite a few extra HP out of shield blocking.I just raise this point as it's a common mistake: As you can't have the Fighter proficiency on both the Shield and the Short Sword, it's better to just attack with the Sword instead of using Double Slice.
You still lack ways of raising attention. A Champion with a shield who has to use an action to Raise it does 40% of the damage output of a proper martial (slightly more with a Paladin). So enemies just ignore them and their shield becomes useless.Shields are best on the champion in my experience. They have a good shield feats and a means to boosts shields with divine ally boosting hit points and break threshold. Shield Paragon is not a bad level 20 feat where raising the shield is a free action.
You can really make a shield shine on a champion.
You can't force them, but the champion has a way to punish whether you attack them or an ally. Champion Reaction and Shield block work off each other nicely. You force the target to suffer the negative effects of Champion's reaction or attack you.
Now a champion with Legendary Armor Proficiency and a Shield has one of the highest ACs in the game with armor specialization and heavy armor. So attacking the champion is going to lower the creature's damage output from a combination of reduced critical hits and hits from the high AC and the shield block or allow you to do reduce the damage done to an ally the target attacks.
The champion's reaction advances. So when you defender another you block the damage, you apply some kind of effect with the paladin extra attack the best and the neutral good enfeeblement not bad and the liberator being too situational to be good. Then as it advances you do persistent good damage which works against most enemy types.
Also with the paladin, you can give your allies an extra attack as well. Or Liberator protect multiple allies.
Point being the Champion has enough feats and reaction advancement to take advantage of using a shield including shield block. They use it best as they have truly effective party defensive abilities to make the reaction usable for more than just shield block making the opponent make choices that boost the champion's damage while also reducing the overall damage the party takes whether blocking damage on another or reducing damage to themselves.
Yes Champion's Reaction isn't a thing to be ignored. If the GM focus into try to ignore the Champions due their high AC and shield the NPC antagonist will be severe penalized by champions reactions and will still done lower damage as if it was blocked or even more if the champion have Shield of Reckoning.
Damage is not everything. Discounting a Champion because they aren't a Striker is narrow thinking. Champions have enough tricks to protect the party. Including positioning, athletics, and their reaction.
I disagree with you on that. Champions don't need a shield to be tanks and be able to take a lot of punishment. With a Shield, you get so high in defenses (+5 AC compared to your comrades) that you reach this stage where enemies clearly understand they have to ignore you. So you lose all the Champion's ability to suck blows past a few hits in the beginning of the fight and as such don't protect the party much.
Without a Shield, Champions are still tanks and will take punishment better than most of their allies (+3 AC is a big thing). So the enemies are in a lose lose situation: Attacking the Champion doesn't work much as they have high AC and good HPs, attacking someone else doesn't work much as Champions still deal significant damage and will use their reaction. The overall is better both in offense and in defense.
A good tank has to attract attention, which in PF2 is a combination of offense and defense. Extreme defense with low offense don't make a good tank, high defense and honorable offense is much better.
Another issue of the Shielded Champion is that you create a lot of pain points:
- If you can't use your reaction (high level fights tend to cover bigger areas and you may end up in a situation where you can't have both your ally and the enemy at 15ft.) you stop raising any attention. And you still deal low damage.
- If the enemies put your melee martial allies down, you lose your frontline entirely as enemies just ignore you. Your entire defensive formation is based on 1 or 2 character survival (depending on the party size) which is a massive weakness.
I disagree with you on that. Champions don't need a shield to be tanks and be able to take a lot of punishment. With a Shield, you get so high in defenses (+5 AC compared to your comrades) that you reach this stage where enemies clearly understand they have to ignore you. So you lose all the Champion's ability to suck blows past a few hits in the beginning of the fight and as such don't protect the party much.
That's a metagaming assumption. Most opponents don't have a system for information sharing where they follow the PC's career from its beginning to end. Most opponents meet the group one time, never heard of them before and die before being able to communicate their findings to future opponents.
Damage is not everything. Discounting a Champion because they aren't a Striker is narrow thinking. Champions have enough tricks to protect the party. Including positioning, athletics, and their reaction.I disagree with you on that. Champions don't need a shield to be tanks and be able to take a lot of punishment. With a Shield, you get so high in defenses (+5 AC compared to your comrades) that you reach this stage where enemies clearly understand they have to ignore you. So you lose all the Champion's ability to suck blows past a few hits in the beginning of the fight and as such don't protect the party much.
Without a Shield, Champions are still tanks and will take punishment better than most of their allies (+3 AC is a big thing). So the enemies are in a lose lose situation: Attacking the Champion doesn't work much as they have high AC and good HPs, attacking someone else doesn't work much as Champions still deal significant damage and will use their reaction. The overall is better both in offense and in defense.
A good tank has to attract attention, which in PF2 is a combination of offense and defense. Extreme defense with low offense don't make a good tank, high defense and honorable offense is much better.
Another issue of the Shielded Champion is that you create a lot of pain points:
- If you can't use your reaction (high level fights tend to cover bigger areas and you may end up in a situation where you can't have both your ally and the enemy at 15ft.) you stop raising any attention. And you still deal low damage.
- If the enemies put your melee martial allies down, you lose your frontline entirely as enemies just ignore you. Your entire defensive formation is based on 1 or 2 character survival (depending on the party size) which is a massive weakness.
The champion does have a big weakness against ranged attacks and mobile fights. I've seen this first hand. I've also seen fighters and rogues have this same issue.
On a side note, that's why I personally see the druid as the best damage dealer in the game. They are good in every type of fight. You need martial damage? Good to go. You need spell energy damage? Good to go. You need a healer? Good to go. You need some summoned hit point bags or flanker? Good to go. You need ranged damage? Good to go. You need three dimensional flanking? Good to go. You need a sustain damage spell? Good to go. You need the terrain altered with damage? Good to go. They are the swiss army knife of PF2 able to do a little bit of everything fairly well that adds up to tremendous power.
But back to the champion.
Nice thing about the champion is they have no problem switching from sword and board to two-hander if the fight should warrant it. They aren't stuck.
One of my players was a dwarf champion with a dwarven waraxe. He would switch it up. Big boss fights he would go axe and shield, mook fights he went two-handed waraxe.
Champions are not stuck. They still are the very best at using shields. No one else is even close to making a shield as useful as a champion makes it.
My group prefers a shield and sword champion if one is present. They seem to perform better if the group optimizes around them than a two-hander champion. Our group knows how to play with a sword and board champion to stay in range and maximize their reactions.
If you're in a group that ignores the abilities of the champion and doesn't coordinate to maximize their abilities, then I guess go two-handed weapon as the champion will be watered down fighter in those instances. If you really want a champion to shine, have your group coordinate with him. That works very well in my experience across all levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a metagaming assumption. Most opponents don't have a system for information sharing where they follow the PC's career from its beginning to end. Most opponents meet the group one time, never heard of them before and die before being able to communicate their findings to future opponents.
Heavy armor, Shields and high AC are things everyone understands. No need to know more about the enemy. So no metagaming, just basic tactics.
Our group knows how to play with a sword and board champion to stay in range and maximize their reactions.
I play in less organized groups, so our mileage may differ because of that.
I play in less organized groups, so our mileage may differ because of that.
This explain a lot the experience difference.
Champion is a class that demands a lot of team work. It needs to stay closer to other frontline allies and these allies needs to stay close to it otherwise its main abilities becomes useless.
It's not a recommended class for disorganized party where each one plays mostly by itself. But it shines a lot as one of the most efficient classes for cooperative players.
There's an enormous gameplay difference between cooperative and non-cooperative partys in PF2.
That's a metagaming assumption. Most opponents don't have a system for information sharing where they follow the PC's career from its beginning to end. Most opponents meet the group one time, never heard of them before and die before being able to communicate their findings to future opponents.Heavy armor, Shields and high AC are things everyone understands. No need to know more about the enemy. So no metagaming, just basic tactics.
A Champion doesn't have "Champion" stenciled on his brow, neither. He could well be pious Fighter or Cleric with armor proficiency. Again, making all opponents know instinctively that the guy in heavy armor has a significantly higher AC than his nimble Swashbuckler counterpart (which isn't even really the case mostly, Swashbuckler's are near to a Champions AC from the little I've built around them) is metagaming on part of the GM. Playing opponents with realistic knowledge of opponents is the fair way to deal with players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Champion doesn't have "Champion" stenciled on his brow, neither.
No, they have high AC. When the monsters fails an attack that should hit everything else, they know they face a tank and switch target. So the Champion will take an attack or 2 before being ignored. That's not metagaming, that's tactics.
It's not a recommended class for disorganized party where each one plays mostly by itself. But it shines a lot as one of the most efficient classes for cooperative players.
There's an enormous gameplay difference between cooperative and non-cooperative partys in PF2.
Be careful, I've never said I was playing in non-cooperative parties. Just less organized parties compared to Deriven's (we have quite many conversations together and he seems to play always with the same bunch of players who have their specific way of playing, this is rather uncommon).
No, they have high AC. When the monsters fails an attack that should hit everything else, they know they face a tank and switch target. So the Champion will take an attack or 2 before being ignored. That's not metagaming, that's tactics.
It's not as if Champions are unhittable by boss monsters, it's more that they are basically uncrittable. And if the monster changes targets, it gets hit with the Champion reaction, which for Redeemers means it will do something like 20 damage less, get Enfeebled 2 and also suffer some persistent damage.
Just less organized parties compared to Deriven's (we have quite many conversations together and he seems to play always with the same bunch of players who have their specific way of playing, this is rather uncommon).
It is? Most people I know who RP have their "standard" groups, where only every few years someone new enters or someone leaves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just less organized parties compared to Deriven's (we have quite many conversations together and he seems to play always with the same bunch of players who have their specific way of playing, this is rather uncommon).It is? Most people I know who RP have their "standard" groups, where only every few years someone new enters or someone leaves.
I don't consider Deriven's group a standard group. Not everyone considers tactics so highly when playing TTRPGs.
I play in groups that play together since ages, still I don't consider them as organized as Deriven's one.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Champion doesn't have "Champion" stenciled on his brow, neither.No, they have high AC. When the monsters fails an attack that should hit everything else, they know they face a tank and switch target. So the Champion will take an attack or 2 before being ignored. That's not metagaming, that's tactics.
That’s absolutely good tactics, to those creatures smart enough to figure it out! But as you pointed out, that should take at least a couple of attacks, or rounds, to determine (if your GM is not metagaming) and that could be 50 hit points of damage not going to someone else at mid-levels. In fights that usually only last four or five rounds that’s pretty significant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Champion doesn't have "Champion" stenciled on his brow, neither.No, they have high AC. When the monsters fails an attack that should hit everything else, they know they face a tank and switch target. So the Champion will take an attack or 2 before being ignored. That's not metagaming, that's tactics.
Be careful, I've never said I was playing in non-cooperative parties. Just less organized parties compared to Deriven's (we have quite many conversations together and he seems to play always with the same bunch of players who have their specific way of playing, this is rather uncommon).It's not a recommended class for disorganized party where each one plays mostly by itself. But it shines a lot as one of the most efficient classes for cooperative players.
There's an enormous gameplay difference between cooperative and non-cooperative partys in PF2.
I'm in a group of guys played together for 30 years plus across editions. I'm a bit spoiled that way as we all like to cooperate from the point of character creation and have a similar playstyle or at least know everyone's play style well.
I've played in pick up or less organized games when I was younger. Sometimes those groups aren't bad, but sometimes you have ego players trying to be the spotlight guy or inexperienced players having fun or people who like to make a character more for roleplay. I know Superbidi does his best in those instances, but a shield block champion may not appear great in that type of group situation or less so than in a highly optimized group where we're setting our martials on each side of the champion and pets such to ensure we're in range of Champion Reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damage is not everything. Discounting a Champion because they aren't a Striker is narrow thinking. Champions have enough tricks to protect the party. Including positioning, athletics, and their reaction.I disagree with you on that. Champions don't need a shield to be tanks and be able to take a lot of punishment. With a Shield, you get so high in defenses (+5 AC compared to your comrades) that you reach this stage where enemies clearly understand they have to ignore you.
I didn't say they need a shield, just that they were good at it. Grappling is another way of forcing an enemy to attack you and not anyone else.
I'm well aware that there are multiple effective ways to build a Champion including being more offensive and shield less. That approach is better in certain party compositions. I prefer a defensive champion if they are paired with a more vulnerable melee striker.
So you lose all the Champion's ability to suck blows past a few hits in the beginning of the fight and as such don't protect the party much.
There is a problem at high level with very mobile enemies. But it is a problem shared by almost all primary melee builds. The answers are much the same. Speed or mount, extending rune, bola, secondary ranged weapons, held actions, evade... none of which are a complete solution. Typically you need help from an ally to alter the encounter situation.
I just raise this point as it's a common mistake: As you can't have the Fighter proficiency on both the Shield and the Short Sword, it's better to just attack with the Sword instead of using Double Slice.
Attack with short sword twice: +0/-4
Attack with shield, then with sword: -2/+0
A d6 at -2 is still better then a d6 at -4.
how do you do this MAPless shield attack?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
how do you do this MAPless shield attack?
I think Lycar is saying that you attack with the shield first (at -2 below your top proficiency) because it is NOT agile and then follow with the short sword because it IS agile (allowing you to attack at your top proficiency) for -2 / +0.
But if you reverse the order you get +0 / -4 (due to lower proficiency AND non-agile).