I'm trying to assemble an absolute nightmare of a character that I'm not going to get into.
Long story short: I'm struggling with AC. Currently I have a shield (+2 AC) and I can raise it to soak damage, but it breaks at 10HP and apparently becomes useless (despite having 20 HP???)
So I'm looking at Glass Shield or Protect Companion as backups for if (when) my shield breaks.
The problem is: The shield spells feel like crap. +1 AC if you raise it, and 5 Hardness if you block, but if you Shield Block with it, it locks the spell down completely for 10 minutes. It has worse AC and equivalent Hardness to a steel shield, but can only realistically be used once per fight.
Glass Shield has only TWO hardness, but deals 1d4 damage to the attacker if they're within 5 feet. Its Hardness increases, but so does its HIT POINTS, which means that if you block an attack that is too weak, the shield might not even deal damage to the attacker, since RAW (as I understand it) the shield vanishes immediately after you use Shield Block.
I'm a summoner who is my own Eidolon, so I can technically use Protect Companion on myself. It effectively gives me Resistance 5 on the triggering attack (and increases by 5 every time it heightens, which is nice), but it also has the once every 10 minutes restriction.
|
The shield spell is really good. For one, every +1 counts - it can be the difference between a hit and a miss, or a hit and a crit.
It is one action, as a caster you can use it as your third action if you don't have to move.
It does not need a hand and can be used by two handed melees with an archetype.
Its hardness scales automatically, and quicker than a sturdy shield (10 at lvl 5 vs lvl 7 for the sturdy shield, and without paying 360 gold)
Sure, you can't use it for 10min if you used the block, but you don't have to use it and there are no other effects.
If you have a hand free for a real shield and the shield block general feat go ahead and use a real shield, but for most caster classes that means investing a general feat...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently I have a shield (+2 AC) and I can raise it to soak damage, but it breaks at 10HP and apparently becomes useless (despite having 20 HP???)
Raising a shield only grants you the circumstance bonus to AC. That doesn't grant any damage reduction and won't damage your shield.
I think you might be confusing the rules for raising a shield with those for performing a shield block. Do you have the shield block feat?
Also, what is your Dex, what sort of armor are you using, and which spell tradition did you choose?
Something important to remember with shields is that they allow you to "break the rules." They allow you to raise your AC above what is normally allowed without having to jump through hoops (like Taking Cover). There are very, very, very few ways to raise your AC in PF2. The reason, typically, you grab a shield is to break these constraints.
The damage reduction is another low cost "rules break." Having the ability to shrug off 5 damage with damage redutcion does not come easily. The cost, however, is that you will need to Repair the shield afterwards and that it can no longer be used in the combat. This is replicated in the shield spell (and in my experience, too many casters forget about the granted reaction).
It sounds like you're making a "tanky Meld into Eidolon" sort of summoner, which isn't a bad idea. However, relying solely on shields does not make you tanky so much as it gives you an extra layer of protection. Given that most combats will be around 3 rounds, having your shield break in the second or thrid round isn't as bad as it sounds. Just have at least one person in the party invest in Crafting to Repair the shield after the battle. Until then you have a combat trick to gain damage reduction (assuming you have shield block). The bigger hurdle is what Gisher has asked - how are you getting up to that +5 combined item/Dex bonus to get up to the "AC cap" (or how many feats are you investing to get heavy armor?)
I would agree with the others. Shield is a very good spell - but it isn't a silver bullet that is going to turn your spellcaster into a tank. It is one option that can be used well in the proper situations. It is a layer of protection that will help keep you alive and fighting.
It also does cost an action to use (both the cantrip and a physical shield item), so it is pretty costly - even as a 3rd action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I see people miss a lot is the fact that you don't need to choose whether or not you block until AFTER the incoming damage is known.
That means it will never break unless you choose for it too.
I've seen players block chip damage, but then allow bigger hits like crits to go through, to great effect. Their shields last longer and all the damage really starts to add up.
Every +1 to your AC is about a 1/6 reduction in expected damage which is pretty significant (assuming normal enemy attack bonus & crits). A dev displayed the numbers, much to the surprise of many. So yeah, shields had to be costly; one action/round + one hand.
Be sure that you are aware the Remaster added Reinforcing Runes to enhance shields.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2811
Like weapon runes, it's kinda mandatory to upgrade your shield as you level, else they just blow up in one hit.
Before the Remaster, this meant exchanging for new, higher Lvl shields, but now you can pick your preference then keep upgrading the rune.
This does put the physical items into a bit of a rough spot, IMO. Those runes are not cheap, and it's a real cost that magics like the Shield cantrip do not have to pay.
_______________________
As far as advice goes, be sure to use movement to steal actions from your foes.
Monsters frequently have abilities that ignore MAP, as well having other features that make them better than PCs at standing still and doing damage via multiple attacks.
As such, even in a 1-v-1, it's quite often better to Step/Stride away to reduce the number of incoming attacks than it is to stand still and raise a shield.
If you have access to the Grease spell, that's my #1 recommendation for an evergreen R1 spell that can steal actions from foes. Any time 2 or more are within 4 squares, I'll usually throw that out.
@Gisher I used the wrong word, I currently have the Shield Block feat from Viking Shieldbearer, so I can block as well as raise.
As I am the king of trying to make Multi-Attribute Dependent characters, I'm a Wellspring Summoner who is receiving Wizard as a free archetype from the Adventure Path (Strength of Thousands). Unlike normal, Wizard isn't locking me out of other archetypes until I'm 2 feats deep, because of an adventure path special rule.
My eidolon is a Beast, so I'm getting the Primal spell tradition.
I'm trying to be a front-line tank, and I would LOVE to get access to Heavy Armor, but the only way I see that happening is taking the Sentinel archetype, which I won't be able to do until ~level 8 because of the Wellspring archetype locking me down until I have 2 more Wellspring feats.
My character is weird. Essentially I'm the Eidolon of a dead summoner. I am both the summoner and the eidolon. This isn't RAW so it's a little touch and go.
Currently my Dex is +3, + Mystic Armor and I'm making up the difference by holding a shield. I took the Reinforce Eidolon as my first level class feat, so I can spend one action to give myself +1 Status Bonus to AC and Resistance 'equal to the spell's level' (which is 1? It's a cantrip, and I'm not sure what this line means.)
So Raising a shield and boosting myself should push my AC bonus to +7. I've also considered the Shielded Arm spell, but that only lasts a minute and eats one of my two daily spell slots.
I COULD raise my dex, but I feel like I should have at least +1 in Con and Str, and I want at least +1 in Int because I'm going to be Wizarding at least a little bit and I don't want my spellcasting bonus to be +0.
Here's the Pathbuilder link to what I've got so far. I'm not decided on Ancestry or Heritage yet, but currently Human > Viking Shieldbearer are crucial to my ability to shield effectively.
https://pathbuilder2e.com/launch.html?build=721253
On shields: Why does a shield Break at 1/2 HP and then become completely useless? Why does it have all that extra HP? Just to resist becoming completely destroyed? I've seriously considering just carrying a stack of shields on my back to use as droppable ablative armor.
On Reinforcement Runes: I was not aware of those, they sound like they could be pretty dope.
On AC: I know Armor Class is really important, but my brain values damage reduction a lot more because it's not something a series of lucky rolls can completely bypass. The fact that I can eat a shield to GUARANTEE that I take reduced damage, instead of just HOPING that the attack misses because I'm harder to hit is much more appealing to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On shields: Why does a shield Break at 1/2 HP and then become completely useless? Why does it have all that extra HP? Just to resist becoming completely destroyed?
I can't speak to your build much as it seems like a very personal thing. I can, however, speak on shields! Shields break because damage reduction is incredibly powerful and getting it does not come easily. It's important to remember that "broken" does not mean "destroyed" and both of these conditions typically only occur when you choose. So when you Shield Block an attack that will break or destroy your shield, you are making a judgement call, "I currently value taking less damage now than I do taking more potential damage later." Shields have this associated cost to them for the damage reduction trade-off and their ability to boost AC beyond normal bounds. A shield should not be used to get to normal AC much in the same way as it shouldn't be considered reliable damage reduction. The opportunity cost to do so is too low, so reliable access to either of these things is gated off (through action economy, feats, or shield HP - which can be mitigated through runes, magic items, and feats).
Also, I would suggest viewing AC as less of a "they will miss me" and instead think of it as "they will not crit me." The opponents willhit you, AC and damage reduction just mitigates the damage taken, statistically.
I can't speak to your build much as it seems like a very personal thing. I can, however, speak on shields! Shields break because damage reduction is incredibly powerful and getting it does not come easily. It's important to remember that "broken" does not mean "destroyed" and both of these conditions typically only occur when you choose. So when you Shield Block an attack that will break or destroy your shield, you are making a judgement call, "I currently value taking less damage now than I do taking more potential damage later." Shields have this associated cost to them for the damage reduction trade-off and their ability to boost AC beyond normal bounds. A shield should not be used to get to normal AC much in the same way as it shouldn't be considered reliable damage reduction. The opportunity cost to do so is too low, so reliable access to either of these things is gated off (through action economy, feats, or shield HP - which can be mitigated through runes, magic items, and feats).
Also, I would suggest viewing AC as less of a "they will miss me" and instead think of it as "they will not crit me." The opponents willhit you, AC and damage reduction just mitigates the damage taken, statistically.
But when a shield is Broken it can't be raised and can't be used to block with, so it's essentially just a useless hunk of wood at that point until repaired. I think?
And yeah, I've had experience with being crit constantly. My first character was a Wizard with low Dex and high Str so basically any time I got hit, I got crit.
But when a shield is Broken it can't be raised and can't be used to block with, so it's essentially just a useless hunk of wood at that point until repaired. I think?
Correct, like I said, that is the trade-off that you make for blocking an attack that you know will break your shield. Late into a fight, it may be an option with few consequences to block that attack that could down you. However, having your shield break in the first round could be tough, but may be necessary if that damage coming in would put you in a worse position.
When you use a shield, you have to balance your priorities in an encounter. These are decision points that shield-users have to keep in mind rather than just trying to Shield Block every attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But when a shield is Broken it can't be raised and can't be used to block with, so it's essentially just a useless hunk of wood at that point until repaired. I think?Correct, like I said, that is the trade-off that you make for blocking an attack that you know will break your shield. Late into a fight, it may be an option with few consequences to block that attack that could down you. However, having your shield break in the first round could be tough, but may be necessary if that damage coming in would put you in a worse position.
When you use a shield, you have to balance your priorities in an encounter. These are decision points that shield-users have to keep in mind rather than just trying to Shield Block every attack.
But what I don't understand is: What is the other half of the shield's HP bar for?
But what I don't understand is: What is the other half of the shield's HP bar for?
It may be there to allow your shield to "break" while still letting players repair and ready it for the next combat.
A destroyed shield is actually gone and never usable again. Especially before the runes, that was a huuuuge gp waste that's unlike anything else in the game system.
Having that, admittedly jank, mechanic ensures that GMs will not delete player shields, while still having them "break." Basically, by ensuring the shield still has HP, it enables them to define and differentiate two different states, one that's "unusable but fixable" (broken), and one that is "completely gone." (destroyed)
This does matter a bit as shields are mostly using the same object rules as anything else. 0 HP means fully destroyed, and many other constructs or objects have "HP thresholds" the reduce their functionality once reached.
-----------------------
I used a Shield Block at L6 in that SoT Adventure Path, and it was instantly destroyed (not broken) in one hit. The AP is waaaaay more jank and BS than most say online. I did it half on purpose to emphasize how the AP just decides to throw random super lethal b!!$~!@# at you for no reason.
Like how one of the very first encounters can just kill players via a save or die staged affliction. We had to donate a hero point to said player to avoid that death.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what I don't understand is: What is the other half of the shield's HP bar for?
Broken = Unconscious. Out of the fight.
Spend 10 minutes to repair it. Down to 1 action if your legendary crafter with quick repair feat.You really want to have someone with Crafting if your using shield.
Destroyed = Dead. Not coming back.
Also the damage reduction is quite a bit.
I.e.
A level 4 fighter might have 56 HP.
And a level 4 sturdy shield (minor) breaks at 8+32 = 40 damage.
That's +70% more effective HP, at worst. Chances are you will block more than once.
Compare it to a level 3 healing potion of 14 HP.
But what I don't understand is: What is the other half of the shield's HP bar for?Broken = Unconscious. Out of the fight.
Spend 10 minutes to repair it. Down to 1 action if your legendary crafter with quick repair feat.
You really want to have someone with Crafting if your using shield.Destroyed = Dead. Not coming back.
This is a fantastic answer. You could block a potentially deadly attack but lose your shield for good in the process. Not a huge loss with a normal off-the-rack shield, but it ends up being a tough choice if you can't get a new shield before the next encounter or if your shield is magical and harder to come by.
It's certainly better than having a negative hit points mechanic, or yet-one-more-rule-to-learn mechanic like Dents.
Everyone already understands hit points. Everyone understands that less than full hit points typically signifies damage or injury. A rather elegant solution, even if it is a bit abstract.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked dents. They were alor easier to track than HP and BT were. I was sad we lost them.
I liked dents. They were alor easier to track than HP and BT were. I was sad we lost them.
I kinda agree. It was too much of a change for most people to like during the playtest though. So it got chopped and we are back to items having HP/BT. Even though most attended items are not attackable because the HP/BT doesn't scale to keep up with the damage being thrown around.
So now we just have a strange place where items (other than shields) have HP/BT but generally don't take damage. And the few times that they do take damage, they get absolutely wrecked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been fond of Raise a Shield. If it's nearly free (like with Bastion Archetype) then it's extra AC. But paying an action to reduce the attention you raise (both because you don't attack with the action to Raise a Shield, because the Shield is in general quite visible and because you have only one hand to attack and as such raise less attention overall) and gain a defence bonus you'll never use because no one attacks you...
Maybe your GMs are nice, but I personally don't attack a weak shield user when there's a raging Barbarian close to my monsters. It's basic prioritization. Overall, I've found shields to be a liability, I've stopped playing all my shield users before level 3.
So to the question I'd answer: No, unless you somehow manage to raise crazy attention... good luck with that.
[...]
I rather like Raise a Shield due to it enabling casters and others to make themselves less appealing targets.
IMO, the ability for any PC to sacrifice a hand to the Shield for the option of 1A --> +2 AC is actually really important for pf2e.
A biiiig problem in the system is that the rules really want tables to run the game where fight's begin at serious range.
Conflicting with that, most fights have the "backline" PCs at 1, -maybe- 2 Strides away from foe melee.
That's a huge issue in many respects, and the option to RaShield really does help the "backline" hold their ground to avoid foes chasing the slightly-faster PCs away from the fight entirely.
Casters and other squishies are in general the PCs that are least hurt by the hand and action costs of a Shield, and that unequal benefit is precisely why the mechanic is an equalizing force for play at the table, and -not- a mechanic that further imbalances the classes.
IMO it functions more to make the foe's target choice between an RaShield Wizard VS the 2-H Rogue a real question. Without it, squishies would loose a serious tool to avoid the dog-piling that's so easy in the pf2e system.
-------------
My main gripe is with Shield Block. Like Medicine in general, it's there to function as a baseline "safety net" similar to RaShield. However, it both requires a General Feat, and is seriously subpar if done raw. You need real investment of gp and possibly Feats to make SBlocking a good Reaction.
And that really, really sucks. So many classes, once again unequally calling out the non-martials like casters+Alch, do not have good Reactions. For players, taking a Dedication with the entire goal of getting a good Reaction for their Class can help immensely with the "casters suck" feeling. (note the design / existence of the Shield cantrip...)
If SBlock was genuinely worth it raw, it could function as a proper safety net available to all. It does not, and is balanced around being an invested specialty. As such, while RaShield helps raise the baseline and equalize, SBlock does the opposite, unbalancing classes based on who has the ability to improve SBlock.
Until there is a real "saftey net" Reaction that all PCs can use (Aid is pretty close to that, IMO) the types of players who like to keep it simple and play their class (not read up and take dips) will disproportionately be worse off by coincide of Class choice.
Basically, it's a biiiig miss for Paizo to not make sure every class has a genuinely useful Reaction in its base kit.
In other words, classes without a good Reaction raise the skill floor of that class and push players to Dedication dip in a way that's not to my personal taste.
And SBlock is presented as a universal option, but is bad without Feat/Feature support. I see that as a significant contribution toward unbalancing the game.
When I play a caster with a shield, I don't use it to block too often. Only shield specialists like the Champion get much bang for the buck from blocking a lot. Normal shield users do not. So blocking should be done judiciously.
I've never been fond of Raise a Shield. If it's nearly free (like with Bastion Archetype) then it's extra AC. But paying an action to reduce the attention you raise (both because you don't attack with the action to Raise a Shield, because the Shield is in general quite visible and because you have only one hand to attack and as such raise less attention overall) and gain a defence bonus you'll never use because no one attacks you...
Maybe your GMs are nice, but I personally don't attack a weak shield user when there's a raging Barbarian close to my monsters. It's basic prioritization. Overall, I've found shields to be a liability, I've stopped playing all my shield users before level 3.
So to the question I'd answer: No, unless you somehow manage to raise crazy attention... good luck with that.
Good thing it's your monsters attacking at not you, right? Wouldn't most creatures locked in combat focus on an enemy within reach, both for realism and action costs? Wouldn't some parties (or even all parties in specific situations) benefit from a shield-bearer taking the brunt in front, even at the cost of a lower weapon die?
You raise a good point that often a shield bearer needs to warrant attention IF the enemy (or their leader) understands meta-tactics (because for all most enemies know, they're facing a boss w/ minions, mercenaries with mixed skill levels, or simple food not a balanced party). Yet I'm unsure why you'd think that earning ire is so hard to do?
Many of the martial classes work as fine or better with a one-handed weapon or unarmed. And the Fighter & Champion (the default shield-users who kinda do need bigger weapons) have abilities which expand their protection to their allies because yeah, some enemies will be canny and ignore them if tactics allow.
As a GM that pressures his players with intelligent enemies, I can't agree that a GM has to be nice for shield users to function well. I can think of several battles where the lead PC would've been destroyed if they hadn't had a shield to mitigate damage.
MO it functions more to make the foe's target choice between an RaShield Wizard VS the 2-H Rogue a real question.
It's not a question: you obviously attack the Rogue because it's next to you, outdamages the Wizard (even if the Wizard is rocking in damage it's certainly through AoE damage so the monster fears the Rogue more than the Wizard) and if you move to get to the Wizard you'll certainly trigger a Reactive Strike (if not from the Rogue from the Fighter who is flanking you).
I am nearly never attacked with my casters and it's either because the enemy started the fight next to me or because I'm dealing so much damage it's quite obvious I am the party main damage dealer (so in general quite late in the fight).
You raise a good point that often a shield bearer needs to warrant attention IF the enemy (or their leader) understands meta-tactics (because for all most enemies know, they're facing a boss w/ minions, mercenaries with mixed skill levels, or simple food not a balanced party). Yet I'm unsure why you'd think that earning ire is so hard to do?
Because you need to outdamage your teammate who's also facing the same monster. So either you are alone against a monster and then the monster strikes at you but you don't contribute to the fight as you damage an enemy no one is attacking or there's a teammate with you and unless they also have a shield they will deal more damage than you and as such get the enemy attention because even animals will attack the dangerous target and not the can next to it that barely moves.
Wouldn't some parties (or even all parties in specific situations) benefit from a shield-bearer taking the brunt in front, even at the cost of a lower weapon die?
Clearly not. My experience with shield bearers is that the loss of damage output vastly overshadows the gain in protection, mostly because they fail at attracting attention and as such are mainly ignored.
Champions are an exception thanks to their reaction but even in their case I don't find the shield to be worth it past level 6 as they have excellent AC and don't really need much more.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The entire idea of a spellcaster is that they can generate unique effects, in contrast to martials who specialize in dealing damage.
Foes basing targeting choices primarily on damage is... unusual.
Even the presumed frailty / hardiness of a target changes the targeting appeal. If a foe thinks a Wiz "dealing 1/2 damage" is more than 2x as easy to KO, they have enough reason to swing for the Wiz. The "easy to hit" idea has huge weight for bestial opponents, and I've personally encountered some that were designed to explicitly pick a vulnerable-looking target.
More importantly, casters are known to threaten debilitating combat effects, effects that may need specific conditions to trigger or maximize.
It is absolutely in-character for any foe to prioritize the prevention of Slow, an AoE debuff, a setup-then-debilitate combo, ect.
----------------------------
It is honestly very strange how flowcharty and limited your presentation of this is.
You mention that the PCs will threaten R-Strikes which protects the Wiz. Yet, it is spellcasting that triggers and is vulnerable to R-Strikes more absolutely than PCs with Strikes. Even Strides have Step.
R-Strikes are notoriously dangerous for spellcasters, in a manner not so for martials, yet you present R-Strikes as if the mechanic only protects spellcasters from being targeted. Every foe with an R-Strike has serious reason to run and target the spellcasters while avoiding the melee-hitters.
Moreover, ~1/2 the time it's the foe that moves to engage first, not the PCs. R-Strikes, even on the PCs, mean that the foe has *more* of a reason to Stride to the PC spellcaster to get into position before R-Strikes threaten their Strides. Even if the PC melee martials are a potential target, the foe knows the melee will willingly approach to make their own swings.
---------------------------
Every angle and manner in which you shake the system, the bulky melee targets are generally the *last* targets. Yes, it's absolutely possible for melee PCs to be built like a glass cannon, and that will change the equation.
Even then, if I'm piloting the foes, most of the time I'd likely be first aiming for the Wiz over the Rogue. Especially if the Wiz appears to lack any defensive option, such as a shield in hand.
you'll never use because no one attacks you...
That's why you really need to pair it with Reactive Stike or similar.
But I agree that if you have a shield using in front, and a rogue behind, the shield isn't doing much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because you need to outdamage your teammate who's also facing the same monster.
I'm going to call into question this concept that intelligent NPC enemies will always target the party member doing the most damage - or even the most damage to that NPC.
Quite often the recommendation for PCs when fighting a group of enemies where one of them is more powerful than the others, but the others are still a threat - is to take down the less powerful enemies first to remove their moderate damage dealing because you can do that faster than taking down the harder hitting and better defended enemy.
Why would it be different for a group of NPC enemies fighting the party? Take down the lower defended moderate damage dealers first to remove their damage from the battle. And maybe distract some of the other party enemies into doing something other than dealing damage each round - like healing a fallen ally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, lots of enemies aren't smart enough to think through the best target and will instead lash out at the nearest for or whoever just hurt it the most.
That said, shield use mostly shines on the two classes with the best feat support: champions and fighters. Champions don't mind their ally getting attacked instead because itr triggers a more powerful reaction than shield block. Fighters with shields work best when they are the sole front liner, both because the fighter needs the added survivability and because if the enemy runs past the fighter to chase a softer target they trigger Reactive Strike.
Like most things in PF2, shields have their place but aren't the best solution for all of the people or all of the time.
I've become a big fan of Shield Block. My Warpriest in Extinction Curse (retired) really used it a lot. Between Shield Block and Replenishment of War he soaked a lot of damage for the party.
My 10th level Mutagenist (still active in PFS) also uses Shield Block a lot. It's been great, and the Shield itself is a lot of fun. (He gained a Martyr's Shield on one adventure, RP'ing Myrsa is a blast.)
Shield also nice on wood kineticist.
And as a bonus, you don't really care if it breaks.
If there was a general feat that said "1a. Requires 1 hand. Effect: GM selects a PC without this feat for the monster to attack instead", then pretty much every character would take it on just about every build.
That "feat" is a shield. At least, for GMs following your tactics. I would absolutely plonk a shield down on every single PC I made for any game with a GM like that. :)
Which is great actually: What I dislike about the shield is what you like about it, great design!
That said, shield use mostly shines on the two classes with the best feat support: champions and fighters.
Champions grab a lot of attention thanks to their reaction so I agree. But I've played with a shielded Fighter and he was struggling to find a place in the party as enemies mostly ignored him in favor of our Flurry Ranger.
Fighters with shields work best when they are the sole front liner
I've never been in such a configuration so I can't know. Having 2 frontliners has been nearly ubiquitous in my experience.
Quite often the recommendation for PCs when fighting a group of enemies where one of them is more powerful than the others, but the others are still a threat - is to take down the less powerful enemies first to remove their moderate damage dealing because you can do that faster than taking down the harder hitting and better defended enemy.
That is before combat recommendation. Once you are in the thick of things continuing to focus fire as a group will work for coordinated enemies like soldiers and rogue-type monsters but will feel completely off on more stupid or brutish enemies.
Also, it's not just "what I think" but "what I've experienced". My casters are in general excellent damage dealers so they grab a lot of attention. Still, enemies rarely pierce through our frontline to pick them, well actually they only do it if the frontline can't contain them at all (in general because the martials are unconsequential or because the enemies have crazy mobility).
That said, shield use mostly shines on the two classes with the best feat support: champions and fighters.
I think it's more of a wash than that. Champions and Fighters have natural shield synergy, but Fighters are crit machines with no static damage modifiers, champions don't have one either. The downgrade of dropping from a d12/d10 to a d8/d6 hits them harder than other classes.
On the other hand, while there's no in-house feat support, things like Monks or Animal Barbarians can equip a shield for free.
Maybe your GMs are nice, but I personally don't attack a weak shield user when there's a raging Barbarian close to my monsters.
Just slap the shield on the Barbarian, then! Covers up their rage penalty and they have such huge natural damage modifiers anyways they can manage the drop in weapon die without too much trouble.
Just slap the shield on the Barbarian, then! Covers up their rage penalty and they have such huge natural damage modifiers anyways they can manage the drop in weapon die without too much trouble.
Forbidding Ward targetting a Barbarian is good. As is a Barbarian with Double Slice with 2 non agile weapons - one of which can be a shield spike. But a Barbarian with a Shield cantrip not so good.