Shield block

[The Total Package]

Would Mountain Resilience stack with a shield block? For example let's say my Shields hardness is 12, and my Mountain Resilience is Resistance 5, would it be a total of 17 vs piercing/slashing/bludgeoning?

[Errenor]

You definitely shouldn't just add them. You need Shield Block reaction to even consider Shield's hardness. But then, Shield Block's position in normal damage assigning procedure is undefined. So, some people say your shield takes (and reduces) all initial damage of the attack and some say that your resistances and weaknesses work first so that shield modifies this increased/decreased damage.
Well, anyway, the damage to you is more or less universally considered reduced by both hardness and resistance, yes.

[Zoken44]

But the fun question which comes first, hardness or resistance.

I'm not sure about the RAW answer, but my interpretation (if I were GM) would be: narratively, what is the cause of the resistance. If it something I would consider creates some kind of field or aura (not specifically tags for that) Then Resistance first.

But in the situation you suggested, it is more to do with you specifically and how you have oriented or trained your body, so I would say hardness first, then resistance.

[YuriP]

This is a question that is often debated here, which comes first, the chicken or the egg, the shield or the resistance.

Logically, it would be the shield, but according to RAW, the most direct interpretation (including the one used in the damage automation of the PF2e module for the foundry) is that the resistances are calculated first because you have not yet suffered the damage, which is the trigger for the reaction.

In any case, for the character itself, both are added together. Some players don't like it working this way and consider that hardness should not be added to resistances, but this is a homebrew, it has no basis in the rules, its used more because when you add both together, it is very common for you to cancel out all the damage that the character would suffer and some people this that this is too OP.

[Conscious Meat]

My personal biases would lead me to suggest that yes, you need to know the potential damage after resistance before you even need to decide whether to shield block (a generous interpretation of the "when you take damage" bit), but they're still separate damage reductions of which only one (hardness) applies to the shield as the spell. The spell makes no mention of also applying to carried equipment, after all.

Ex: if the incoming damage is a 5 damage hit, then you should know this and that resistance would reduce it to 0, and Shield Block shouldn't even trigger.

If, however, the incoming damage is a 15 point hit, you would know that *you* would take 10 after resistance if you didn't shield block, but you could shield block it. If you shield block, the damage would first be reduced by the hardness of 12, and the shield would take 3 (it's not protected by the spell) while you would take 0 (as you are protected by the spell).

[YuriP]

It's a fair interpretation. But I remember way back when, I think in some old post or interview, he said that the idea behind Shield Block was to be simple, that's why you know the damage before you choose to block and that's why it applies resistances first. That way, you just need to reduce it by hardness and apply the same damage to both the character and the shield.

Just don't ask me where I read that because it was years ago.

[Kelseus]

The trigger for the Shield Block reaction is "you would take physical damage from an attack."

You would need to know if your resistance would reduce the damage to zero to know if it triggers shield block. I think it should be handles as less of an "apply resistance to the damage" and more of a "check to see if the damage would exceed your resistance."

First scenario: Opponent swings and hits, but they roll very poorly, only 4 slashing damage. That is below my 5 slashing resistance, I would take no damage so no trigger for shield block.

Second scenario: Opponent swings and hits. They roll closer to average damage 12. This exceed my slashing resistance of 5. If I use my shield block reaction, I take the shield's hardness off the damage, in this case 12. Because the total damage does not exceed the shield's hardness, neither I nor my shield lose hp.

Third scenario: Opponent swings and hits. They roll above average damage of 16. This exceed my slashing resistance of 5. If I use my shield block reaction, I take the shield's hardness (12) off the damage. The remaining 4 damage is applied to both me and the shield. The shield then loses 4 hp, but I have 5 slashing resistance, so I take no damage.

Forth scenario: Opponent swings and hits. They roll max damage of 25. This exceeds my resistance to slashing damage. If I use my shield block reaction, I take the shield's harness (12) off the damage. The remaining 13 damage is applied to both me and the shield. The shield then loses 13 hp, but I have 5 slashing resistance, so I only take 8 damage.

[Tridus]

YuriP wrote:

It's a fair interpretation. But I remember way back when, I think in some old post or interview, he said that the idea behind Shield Block was to be simple, that's why you know the damage before you choose to block and that's why it applies resistances first. That way, you just need to reduce it by hardness and apply the same damage to both the character and the shield.

Just don't ask me where I read that because it was years ago.

I remember the same thing. And it makes sense: a lot of PF2's design philosophy is to simply fiddly, complex rules and have less of that so the game is easier to learn and play.

"You and your shield take two different damage amounts because resistance only applies to one of them" is definitely a more complicated rule than "you and your shield take whatever gets through."

It makes both playing and implementing the rule in tools like VTTs easier if it works that way. That was (and probably still is) a consideration for the rules designers.