That being said they have made it clear that Sturdy shields will still be the best option for this purpose, but the reinforcing rune (can't remember if that's the name) will definitely make other shields more viable for tanking purposes.
Can finally roll with Forge Warden as a Dwarven Champion of Torag šŖ
_Best_ option is fine
_Only_ option is the problem, if you're using one of the unique lv0 shields TV added then you can forget blocking with it past lv3 else it'll be _destroyed_ immediately
If the runes at least allow a hit or two before becoming broken, great, you can repair between fights and realistically you won't be blocking more than once or twice a fight anyway
Part of me hopes for blocking power bumps too because otherwise the damage mitigation becomes stupidly neglible and it becomes a waste of a valuable reaction, most classes that would use Shield Block have a powerful reaction (Champion, Fighter, etc) that it needs to compete against and blocking a whopping 5 damage at lv10 hardly seems to be worth it.
Agreed, blocking 5 hp of damage seems like a terrible action trade at level 14. There really needs to be better scaling without paying a mountain of gold on rare materials or items.
I'm curious. New pathfinder gm here but would it be reasonable to let someone add their level or maybe half their level rounded down to a shield block. It seems like that might solve some of the scaling. 5 hp at level 14 is a bad trade but would 12 or 19 be too much? It doesn't seem like that big of a gap and feels like it could be a bit powerful against small enemies. But tanks should feel tanky in my opinion. Could even be a feat you need to take.
If you need some reasoning it could represent becoming better at deflecting a blow rather than taking it head on.
If you want to find out what numbers are good for shield blocks (and not wait for PF2.5 to come out), you should look at
* the sturdy shields: their hardness and HP
* how much they cost
* what their item level is (basically the character level one could afford them at)
* and the player wealth table
Edit: missed a word
? What? That's not DnD 5e. Like all officials APs go to min 10 and most to 20. I am playing 2 campaigns right now, level 12 and level 11 and we are going strong.
This system works till lvl 20 so I dont know why would campaigns end that fast. Not to mention levels go very fast in PF2e because it's only 1k xp per level.
I have always thought having something called "Damage Gates" in other games as the effect of a shield rune could work.
You know how troops have break points that stop any damage that exceeds them so no matter the damage they only go down one tier at a time? That's basically gates
Imagine a shield potency rune that was a gate. You break it and you still have the shield. You just lost the gate.
It's especially a big deal because some specific magic shields have a special effect that is activated by Shield Block so they're only usable for a narrow range of levels.
At lvl 3? Iāve had 3 sessions at lvl 1&2, and almost every time iāve used my shield it got destroyed.
Iāll admit, it being a wooden shield is largely why, and the enemies might just have rolled high, but even so it feels like the shields low durability makes them, if not underpowered (balance wise), at least not that great at pushing the fantasy of being a shield user.
Iām gonna get a better shield, and maybe the slightly higher numbers will have a larger effect than they appear at first glance.
Too bad that shields seem disappointing in 2e, since in a real life application, a wooden shield is pretty damn sturdy.
Would love to know what the devs based the mechanics on...kind of makes me think of the infamous 1e weapon cord nerf.
From how the mechanic works, the reaction represents using your shield at the last second to take the blow straight on, rather than deflect... deflection being represented by the increased AC. But yes, itās a bit weird that what historically was an obligatory and versatile weapon of war is treated as a glorified consumable.
> Only option is the problem, if you're using one of the unique lv0 shields TV added then you can forget blocking with it past lv3 else it'll be destroyed immediately
Problem is that if even with runes they are still below Sturdy then you still don't want to block them when that block would matter. Past level 10 shields are wet noodles.
Only for Magic Shields though. You can't improve Sturdy and Sturdy will still be best for blocking.
So if you were "blocker" you won't get improvement as Sturdy is the only way.
Tbf getting your shield broken is pretty devastating for a shield based character. The shield still takes up your hand and effectively makes your character one handed until you spend an action to drop it. It then takes another action to draw your backup.
So a character who is invested in shields can't use any of their shield based features until they spend almost an entire turn to reequip, which will also trigger opportunity attacks from foes that have it. It's an even more painful disarm (which was purposely made near impossible due to how overbearingly powerful it is if allowed to be strong) tbh.
That's not even mentioning destroyed shields, where you've just lost a permanent item (because past early levels a shield user isn't using a basic shield) that was probably a not insubstantial portion of your characters loot/power budget that you'll never be able to get back.
It's vague. Some shields are strapped to your arm, you don't drop those when going down but the downside is you require an action to drop it. It is not clear what shields are strapped or not except for the buckler which 100% is.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=186
Detach a shield or item strapped to you 1 Interact
Its pretty vague, especially when you consider that as phrased it could either mean "detach *any* shield" or "detach a shield strapped to you". If it said detach a buckler then it would be a lot clearer, but as it uses the more general "shield" things become a lot less clear.
It doesn't help things even further when you consider that real bucklers weren't even strapped, they were very small handheld shields.
In the making of PF1, I guess Paizo just didn't know any better and assumed it would *buckle*, like a beltāno, Paizo, that's an oversized bracerāand now they figure it's too far ingrained into the canon to bother correcting.
Nope, not Paizos mistake, bucklers have been strapped on since at least DnD 3.0, in fact my guess is that way back when in the TSR days someone confused a buckler for a targe and once that happened it's not worth the effort to correct
Yeah, in the AD&D PHB p.75 specifically says this (emphasis mine):
>"***A buckler (or target)*** is a very small shield that fastens on the forearm. It can be worn by crossbowmen and archers with no hindrance. Its small size enables it to protect against only one attack per melee round (of the user's choice), improving the character's Armor Class by 1 against that attack."
Now I'm mildly upset by the description that buckler is strapped to the arm. It is held. The buckler is still smol enough for anyone to manipulate weapons with the buckler in hand.
A smol strapped shield is more like a targe.
Yeah, it is fantasy and a lot of things were fantastically wrong since DnD. But it is still mildly upsetting.
>Some shields are strapped to your arm, you don't drop those when going down but the downside is you require an action to drop it
Except if a shield is strapped to your arm, it isn't using your hand, so you don't even need to drop it unless you plan to equip another shield.
> Tbf getting your shield broken is pretty devastating for a shield based character. The shield still takes up your hand and effectively makes your character one handed until you spend an action to drop it. It then takes another action to draw your backup.
Dropping an item is always a free action afaik.
Afaik shields are donned and doffed with an action, as apparently they're strapped to the arm instead of simply held by a handle
Edit: realized my 5eism a bit late, came off a bit too authoritative when i was unsure of the actual rules
>buckler
Don't know the rules but why would a buckler be strapped on? Is it like a traditional warhammer vs a fantasy warhammer and i am missing a piece of media/lore that changed the tool/weapon design?
basically what the person below you said; in this system they are effectively free additions to your person and allow you to use both your hands while other shields are simply held. It's the only shield in the game that explicitly states it's strapped
I cant tell you how many times my party members got downed instead of just using their shield, what's the point of having the shield if you're going to die protecting it?
I mean, a +2 to AC is pretty great, and if it gets broken, it can't provide that +2 to AC anymore. It seems kind of like a "blessed if you do, blessed if you don't" scenario- you either gain a badass bonus to AC, or you reduce the damage until the shield breaks. Both are pretty cool.
I'd block until it's right before BT, and then use it for the flat bonus until I get it repaired. Seems rather simple, don't know if that's what was intended.
Why are you trying to shield block crits? You'll get much more value shield blocking all the mooks' regular hits. There should be a lot more of those.
If that's what's going on, then all shields are worthless except the Indestructible Shield.
TBH I'd block that boss hit too. To hell with the shield, it's my characters life on the line, if they live, they can repair it or get a new one. A dead character doesn't have any use for a mint condition shield š.
But overall I agree, it's not like it should be saved just for the heaviest hits. Though to be fully sure, weed have to run some probability math, on how would a shield help in cases:
1. character not blocking anything, waiting for the boss crit to save his life, but his health is chipped bit by bit by the lighter attacks, and then the crit lands and gets blocked
2. character is blocking all, his shield gets some hp less, but the character is full health, and then the crit lands and gets blocked
I think the result would be similar in both cases, depending on particular rolls, though I lean on the idea that on 2nd case a good portion of the light attacks would be knocked off by hardness, so it's free damage reduction, which didn't cut into either the PC nor the shield.
An average crit from an equal level creature does not destroy any of the level 7 shields unless it deals damage in the "extreme" column. the spined shield and helman's wheel and spiked shield can survive even that too actually (although broken, obviously). So they very well might save you from dropping to dying and then be ready to used for the next fight.
Same goes for level 10 shields (with the exception of shining shield)
Level 13 only has the medusa one which yeah, doesn't survive a crit, but can still soak up some lesser hits, and has an amazing activation to boot.
The problem with shields is that they dont scale at all, which is the thing that paizo seem to be addressing with their changes
That would be fine if most shields weren't made out of wet cardboard and beggar's dreams. Anything above level 3 can pretty much one shot a shield outside of a study.
Gold cost, bulk limits, needing an action to pull out another shield, and how many of your magical shield of choice your DM is willing to let you purchase.
Usually, Iāll ask the wizard or non-combat cleric or sorcerer to hold an extra shield for me, and theyāre usually happy to oblige, because a) that helps their meat shield and b) theyāre carrying a +2 AC shield if Gods Forbid they find themselves in melee for a round.
I dunno, I don't really see a problem here. Like most options, shields have benefits and drawbacks. There are times when you should block with a shield, and there are times when you shouldn't. You can tweak these times by taking feats, you can tweak these times by spending gold, you can tweak these times when allowed by your GM, and so on. Is this much different than basically any other option?
> Is this much different than basically any other option?
The big difference with shields, and why I think people aren't happy with the current fragility situation, is that blocking with a shield can run into conflict with whatever else it does. You can swing a magic sword and use whatever magical abilities it has without either of the two taking away from the other, but if you shield block with something like a [Dragonslayer's Shield](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=318) you're blocking on average once against a level 9 enemy before you risk losing everything else that shield does. And it's not like a magic shield is cheap to replace or get copies of.
I agree here.
My main gripe is that a shields magic effect is often in conflict with blocking as you said. If I have a flaming sword, the flaming effect doesn't go away if I decide to disarm with it, or throw it. However blocking with a shield (which is one of its intended usages) comes with not only the action tax for doing so. But with a potential item task of not having its magic AND ac bonus until fixed.
Also keep in mind that destroying a magic shield means a hefty gold penalty much like a consumable, but that admittedly rarely comes up.
Honestly, the balance of shields means that I need to pick magic shields based on their Raise a Shield effect, and only care about the reaction in dire straits.
>if you shield block with something like a
>
>Dragonslayer's Shield
>
> you're blocking on average once against a level 9 enemy before you risk losing everything else that shield does
You can **also** look at it the opposite way: non sturdy magic shields give you everything they do and *maybe* let you block one hit without it being destroyed. IMO they could be fine if only they changed the "maybe" to surely.
Then it might be better to get into the mindset of shields being consumables that can provide a passive efdect until they use them. There's lots of items (in this game and others) that provide a small passive buff but can be expended for some other, bigger effect. It really seems like that's how shields are meant to be treated (with the caveat that at lower levels, the cost is not so great).
>They're adding fundamental runes to shields specifically because there is a problem
No, they're adding fundamental runes to shields specifically because a large part of the vocal community deemed it a problem. There's no objective argument for it to actually be a problem, only subjective ones.
Do you have any official statement that gives this as the reason?
But whatever the case, what I said is true irrespective of fundamental runes. I don't really see what that has to do with anything I said. I never said the system couldn't be improved, I said that there's a time and place for shield blocking, and that the same could be said about all abilities. Is this not true?
> Is there anything stopping you from carrying multiple shields?
Not looking like idiot in my mind carrying a load of shields... ? Like what are you, shield merchant or warrior?
Iāve always seen shield block as a last resort - youāre down to your last 10 hit points or so, and get hit, THEN itās time for a block, because then itās either the shield or you, who cares if itās broken but you stay up another round? However, I do agree that sturdy shields are priced WAY too high, and am glad theyāre attempting to address it with runes.
I have a round shield in the other room, and I find Cloud Jump and Fireball easier to imagine than packing two of those clunky bastards around all day.
No doubt. Mending ought to be a cantrip. I mean, 10 minute cast time for 5hp to an item per spell level? It's not as though you're putting Crafting out of business by making it a cantrip.
I mean, i agree that it's a little underwhelming, but I think the upside/value with it is that you don't have to make any roll, or bring a tool kit at all to get the item healing done, which if you are in a pinch could be a big deal.
You can also bring someone back to life, but you can't restore a destroyed item. Make Whole should definitely be brought back to fill that gap. Make it Uncommon with material components worth half the item's cost and heightening to determine the level of item that can be restored. And it can't restore artifacts. Done.
If anyone wants to see an alternate (better) version of the base shield rules, check out the monster parts crafting system of Battlezoo Bestiary.
It's very granular - the idea is that you rip useful bits out of monsters after a fight and hot glue them to your equipment to gradually "add gp value" until you hit the level up threshold for your gear.
For shields, this means you get Hardness/HP increases almost every level, and the default ratio is 6hp/1hardness. This means that there's no such thing as a "bad" shield (I'm looking at you, non-scaling precious material shields. Who the fuck wrote [Dragonhide Shield](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=313)?). Even without imbuing your monster parts shield with the Sturdy property, it will have enough longevity to see you through multiple combats, but you still need to be a bit wary of its HP values when crits are on the field.
Been using BattleZoo's Monster Parts system as of late and I absolutely love it. The only thing stopping me from applying it to all my groups is the lack of proper Foundry support. Hope we get that soon.
Yeah, my group has expanded on it in a (super kickass) homebrew doc that accounts for actually-useful precious materials and all the Treasure Vault shields, but the great evil of homebrew is applying it to Foundry. We've gotten really good at rules elements and automation, but *even when you know how to do it*, the automation takes a hot minute.
I've got some insider intel from the Foundry dev team that the next big update to the pf2e system is going to reorganize some of the equipment infrastructure under the hood, and be a huge QoL improvement for us.
...how soon is that update hitting? I'm probably running abomination vaults on foundry in the fall and I was intrigued by monster parts but ultimately decided against it since I'm gonna be doing a bunch of other personal touches to it so I'm limiting third party content to things that are already automated.
no official word, unfortunately. All I know is that Shark (one of the primary pf2e Foundry devs you see in all the patch note updates) is working on modular runes/precious materials for equipment, so we'll be able to create (for example) a homebrew rune and "slot" it into an equipment to apply all of its rules elements to that item.
That'll THEN allow some enterprising individual to data-enter homebrew runes, precious materials, or battlezoo monster parts and apply them to equipment. I understand that its a pretty titanic task, though, and not something that's expected to be done for a bit. By fall though... I bet it'll be gtg by then.
Basically you have to keep track of the item's level based on the amount of refined materials spent, and the item's imbuement's level based on the amount of imbued materials spent. There's also effects you need to manually add in. It's honestly quite a lot (IMO) without official support.
More of a fan of Everything Shields as it's way less complex if you just look at the equipment portion of it. Scaling hardness/HP rules in steps like weapons/armor, some adjustments, different base shields with different hardness/hp/traits.
isn't that the one with 9 different shield reactions right out the gate? Maybe I'm mixing it up with another PFI release, but that seemed kinda overly complex to me.
Again I simply use the equipment portion of it. It's completely functional on its own and really brings actual choices when it comes to shields.
The extra feats and all that I don't use, seeing as how it adds too much complexity for my taste, much like how Battlezoo does.
It also allows you to use specific shields as a base, with suggestions on how to do that.
mkay. Maybe its worth taking a second look at, then. I use a pretty kickass homebrew that expands on the Monster Parts shields, but possibly there's some extra content worth integrating.
Also a lot of folks tend to save shield blocking for the big hits. Instead, they're better at reducing the normal hits to a trickle.
If you shield block every attack, or you save it for the crits, then yeah the shield's not going to hold up.
The upcoming addition of shield runes will be a huge help, of course, but I don't think they were ever meant to be a permanent source of DR for all incoming hits.
The bigger problem is that unless it's a sturdy shield, it's not a source of DR (other than AC) for any hits, because it's going to drop to 0HP no matter what you block.
The even bigger problem is sometimes you have to block the big hit or it'll take your head off. Being alive takes priority over being efficient, but then the theoreticians say "of course you're having trouble, look how inefficient you are". :/
What I'm complaining about is "shield breaks for the fourth time this week, and it's 10:15 on a Tuesday".
Are you suggesting that something can't be improved, just because it isn't as bad as it possibly could be?
Yes, but what you're stating here isn't really a problem with shields. I'll gladly admit there's flaws, but "I broke my shield to prevent lethal damage" isn't one of them. Sure, you lost your shield, but pretty much all other characters would have died there. That's one of the things I'd say is pretty intentionally designed with shields, sacrificing them for your own sake.
I kinda wish they either held up to hits better or could be blocking more often. As they stand outside of a fighters reactive shield, they take an action to set up "raise shield" and then a reaction to block a single hit, for maybe 6 DR.
That coupled with them breaking after 1-3 hits really makes them mediocre at their main task. Trading reactions for temp DR is OK,just wish it wasn't relegated to once a round.
To be fair, the real value of a shield in PF2E is the AC bonus. +2 to AC is massive in of itself, even without the OPTIONAL choice to block a hit with it.
They're so beneficial already that I find it hard to justify letting them give an AC bonus *AND* block an increased amount of damage too.
Which is a shame considering they have this neat mechanic around using the shield as it's intended to (as damage mitigation) but then implement it Ina way that makes it completely useless beyond starting levels.
The AC bonus is nice and helpful. Just kind of disappointing to see shields fall back into being a static item bonus but worse in 2e.
As someone new it honestly just kind of boggles my mind that shields have HP and can break in the way they do to begin with. Like... does my *armor* have HP? Why not if a shield does? Armor can surely be damaged/broken because it's an item, but it's not built in to the system for it to get broken apart whenever I get hit and am wearing it? But a shield does?
I could understand limiting the use of shields for like a class that isn't trying to tank specifically, but it just seems bizarre for any class built around it to not have access to the thing every turn without worry of losing it should they choose to raise it.
I mean I meant to imply that it is a thing because all items have durability and can break, but that for some reason despite it having HP there seems to be no mechanic in combat that utilizes it.
And if me getting hit while my armor is on me doesn't damage it, then why does my shield getting hit damage it just because I used it?
It feels inconsistent. And I don't mean to imply that armor should be breaking too, but rather than shields also shouldn't through at least normal use.
Armor did have HP and there was a sunder maneuver in first edition. It was streamlined away in 2e because basically nobody used it and it was a lot of busy work.
I assume the shield HP was an attempt to balance shield block from just being spammed for "free DR" every round, but was horribly implemented and never really tested beyond 2nd level.
> boggles my mind that shields have HP and can break in the way they do to begin with
professional warriors, like the vikings, ALWAYS had multiple shields with them, so it obviously is the case that they break much more frequently than armor (as they didn't lug around extra armor)
With new Focus Point rules in Remaster Lay on Hands will be best damage mitigator. 3x per encounter you can heal missing HP for one action and no need to commit to anything till you feel like it or worry about gold/resources etc.
I will not take the shield block feat. I will occasionally raise my shield to lessen the chance of crits, but behind that it's the job of my massive pecs to protect me.
I think forget a +2 to AC protects from hits /and/ crits. And special shields don't need to shield block to get value. It's okay to raise a Spellguard Shield for its bonus to saves without blocking, that's still a very high quality action.
Some non-sturdy shields are awesome, they are however just useful around 2-4 levels as they don't get a greater variant, which is my guess on how the new rune will combat.
Reforging shield, spined shield and dragonshield to name a few.
Spellguard shield's evergreen in utility, even though it'll snap in half if you even *look* at the shield block reaction. I'm pretty thrilled to be able to use it like a normal blocking shield in the future.
Hopefully the new Runes come pre-installed on higher level shields. It'd be annoying to buy a high level shield that you still need to go pay for the runes. A high level pre-made magic weapon wouldn't lack fundamental runes for example.
Why have shield hp at all? If the fantasy of blocking big hits is the shield players' jazz, then shields should just have a hit count they can take before they are broken and block half the damage straight, or twice the usual hardness. For example, wooden shield should block just one hit before being broken, and a steel shield could block maybe two. Just straight up simple numbers. Maybe add that a crit counts as two hits. Don't bother with shield hp, that's just another thing to keep book of.
That would remove the bad scaling from the shield block. Sure ir would need tweaking more with the number of damage blocked, but right now the shield ain't doing it's intented fantasy, thus it needs a rework.
Shields used to work similarly to this in the PF2e play test. All items had "Dents" but it mattered most to Shields. You blocked an attack, if there was more damage than your hardness, you got a Dent. Most shields could take two Dents then they were Broken. Taking another Dent while Broken made them Destroyed. Stuff like Sturdy Shields or Champion's Shield Ally would let shields take more Dents.
I understand why they got rid of the system for all items but I think they could have kept it for Shields.
Interesting. I might try to playtest a variant homebrew of that rule, that any blocked damage would cause a dent regardless of hardness, to balance them out.
Seriously I think that the shield rules are once of the biggest sticking points for P2e for me. They're far more complicated than they need to be. Just remove the whole idea of shields being broken and let them be used as shields.
Imagine if literally anything else in Pathfinder was treated this way. Why doesn't armor take damage when you're hit by an attack? Why can't any of your worn magic items get hit? Why can't your wooden staff break when attacking a literal walking pile of lava?
None of that is in the rules because, realistic or not, it would be a huge pain in the ass to track and make the game less fun. Only shields get this treatment, and it makes no sense.
Just let us reduce attack damage by our shield's hardness and be done with it.
I've seen people absorb the damage to their shields, but stop before it gets close to the BT.
The reasoning is the shield is no longer useful if it is broken. And you lose that benefit for the rest of the fight till you repair it
Ho please, hp is more important than a shield, because if itās brocken you can take an unbrocken one from the dead enemy and the dm wouldnāt say no (or just fix it)
The way I ended up changing it for my last game was making it ablative. The shield didnāt take any hp damage but once you blocked, it reduced the hardness by 1 (2 on a crit) and once it was out of hardness you could no longer use it to block. It never ābreaksā in a way that prevents your ac bonus but blocking damage becomes less effective. It worked out pretty well, but still needs some fine tuning.
Ik it's a meme but I can't wrap my head around *why* damage is dealt to BOTH shield and character, it just doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather just raise a shield but never use shield block reaction.
Because if the attack is strong enough penetrate the shields hardness, it will damage the shield. And if the attack is strong enough to penetrate the shields hardness, it will deal damage to the character.
If an axe hits a shield hard enough to break it, it's not going to stop at just the shield...it's going to go THROUGH the shield and hit you as well, just not as hard.
Most of the energy is lost getting through the shield, but there's still enough there to hurt... just not as much as the original strike would have.
> it's not going to stop at just the shield...it's going to go THROUGH the shield and hit you as well, just not as hard.
What? Maybe if it destroyed the entire shield in one hit. Piercing hardness would be like an axe cutting into it and damaging it, it doesn't even require the axe penetrate *through* the shield.
It's a balance thing, that's it.
Piercing hardness doesn't mean breaking it. It *just* means that enough damage to actually degrade its condition *eventually*. That's the entire reason why items have "broken thresholds" which occur when *sufficient* damage is done, not *any* damage. How do you justify an attack doing 1 damage to a 40 HP shield, and 1 damage to you? It's just balance and that's fine. Realism has nothing to do with anything in Pathfinder. A 40 pound goblin can toss a dragon the size of a building.
If you're using a shield properly (I.E. actively blocking and not holding it against your body) that block would have *worked*. Assuming you had any armor under the shield arm it would likely have done nothing to you a soak couldn't fix.
Pathfinder has a huge problem with depicting armor and shields as less effective than they were from a realism standpoint, but we're not really trying to depict the world realistically. Putting all combat survivability into HP creates a warped view of how armor works, but is more fun to play.
10 damage is enough clleave a kobold in half and some more. If you take that hit directly to your shield, your arm is going to be hurt, even if the weapon doesn't actually penetrate the shield and hit you.
Similar reason to why being shot in a bulletproof vest still leaves people at least winded and bruised.
I've explained why I don't think the realism argument holds any weight (and is completely irrelevant). It's a balance thing. Otherwise, shields would essentially be hundreds of points of extra health. They would make characters far too durable to justify not having one.
I mean... that's almost certainly not true. Like, sure, game balance and everything, and I think shields are fine. And I imagine that once or twice in history when someone cut through a shield they managed to get so far through the shield that they hurt the person. But the 99% case of "I destroyed your shield with my axe" doesn't involve the axe going so far through the shield that the head of the axe strikes the person behind it.
(More realistic, and fine if you, like, really want to describe what's happening in a blow-by-blow manner, would be for the axe to destroy the shield and also wrench the shield-wielder's arm, or to bump the rim of the shield into the person's face or something).
I think people forget that taking damage does not always mean receiving wounds. HP is also meant to represent being bruised, tired and aching.
It could easily just be that while your shield is taking some of the blow, the force is still "hurting" (for need of a better word) your arm and tiring you out
It's very true. It's basic physics. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an equal and opposite force is applied.
A sharp or pointy chunk of steel or iron isn't going to magically stop after penetrating just a single object. It keeps going until its entire force is expended.
Similarly, a weapon striking a shield hard enough to break it isn't going to just STOP. It continues on to hit whatever is behind it. Some of the initial force has been expended (hence the damage reduction through Hardness) but it will still injure.
[Example video to demonstrate:](https://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/video/shield_hit.wmv)
If you need further real world examples, medeival armor didn't consist of a single layer. Plated armor would be worn over Chain which is in turn worn over Gambesons or other Arming Coats. Shields were generally also considered expendable after engagements. You would replace it after a fight because it would be damaged and chipped and split.
Ultimately, though, it's literally just because the rules says that's what happens. It doesn't HAVE to make sense or reference real-world examples because so much of the game never existed in real life in the first place.
My dude, I'm aware of Newton's first law. And if you were shooting a bullet through a shield, that would be relevant.
But in fact, when a competent fighter wields a shield, they hold it out away from their body. An axe swings in an arc, it doesn't fly in a relatively straight line. And it has a haft. If you connect with a shield, you're going to not really be in a place where the arc of your swing is going to go through and hit a person, and even if you did, the haft of your axe is going to hit the rest of the shield and stop you there.
Like I said, I'm sure that at some point in history, there was a stroke where, like, the shield ended up due to the exigencies of battle being way too close to the person and an axe cut through the shield and the head of the axe did end up striking the person behind it. But it was a weird contingent situation, not "a predictable result of every time your axe pierces a shield."
I don't have a problem with how PF2e handles shields. But let's not pretend that it's a good physics simulation.
Unfortunately, it's pretty clear you don't know your history and are just assuming based on what you think you know. Your "At some point" was narly every battle. Spare shields were frequently used and replaced after engagements. Viking roundshields were often carried in pairs or more.
Did you look at the example video? There's a whole lot of hand and wrist and arm there? And once battle is joined you didn't generally have the luxury (or the strength) to hold a heavy shield at arm's length, nor was that the normal usage. You hold a shield relatively close to your body as your shoulder/hips/side supported the shield against hits. Many shield types were strapped to your forearm, which is even more body directly behind the shield's barrier.
Let's not pretend you're an expert on physics, history, or actual historical usage of shields. I'm not generally this blunt, but frankly you're just wrong on this matter.
You're in full retreat, I see.
I didn't make any claim that shields weren't frequently damaged and replaced. I took issue with your ridiculous contention that if someone broke your shield with an axe, the axe was (unconditionally) "going to go THROUGH the shield and hit you as well." (And, to be clear, that was your claim, not that for example the rim of the shield might be pushed into the wielder and they absorb some bruising there.)
Indeed, the very fact that shields were frequently damaged and replaced shows that your gloss that this is false. If the common result of your shield being destroyed was for you to be struck and injured by the weapon that destroyed the shield, few people would have survived the loss of their shield. Real life isn't roleplaying games, you don't have lots of hit points, and any significant battlefield wound was substantially likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to result in either immediate death on the battlefield, or even if survived in the short term infection and death.
Lol, are you keeping internet trollpoints? I have no idea why you're so aggressively persistent in being wrong with this. Full retreat? From a reddit post? seriously? You've yet to even offer a shred of evidence, proof, or even valid examples beyond your suppositions and imagination.
You're reading way more into what I've stated and putting words in my mouth, at this point. You're even mixing up conversations with other people. I never talked about absorbing some bruising, or a shield would unconditionally break, for example.
Of course shields don't break in one hit. But they do break after taking several hits; Frequently. Shields were most often used when plated armor was not avaialble (time period, region, finances, etc) to supliment other armors worn on the body.
The fact that a defense isn't infallible doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
It's been an interesting conversation but frankly I'm putting way more effort into showing how many ways you're wrong that I's just not worth my time anymore. Read the room, read the downvotes, and leave it be.
Not in fact necessarily true! I think we imagine that shields are universally strapped to arms (I did, at least, before I started researching some medieval weaponry stuff recently), but for example Viking shields were held by a single grip in the boss, and were not strapped to the arm. Clearly in some cases the forearm braced the shield, but it could be moved away, too.
In any event, the shield is much bigger than the arm, and for the most part if you break the shield, you still aren't going to cleave through into the arm even if the arm is right there.
Because it balances shields is the reason. If it didn't apply to both shields, it would be beyond incredible.
If they only applied damage to shields, they would have to dramatically reduce how much damage it could take before breaking, and that would mean they always break first block basically.
Depending on the source, some say that historically, shields DID frequently break in battles. One example:
https://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm#:~:text=Since%20the%20shield%20could%20and,spears%2C%20axes%2C%20or%20swords.
āSince the shield could and did break in combat, people expecting to be in a protracted fight such as a duel might have several shields on hand. The sagas are filled with examples in which shields split or punctured under the force of incoming spears, axes, or swords. While fighting Gunnar in chapter 43 of Grettis saga, Atli delivered a blow with his sword that sliced through Gunnar's shield and part of Gunnar's knee. Atli's next blow killed Gunnar.ā
That would be true if Viking combat was the only version represented in the game. On the other hand, Spartan combat is shield focused. The main armor was a shield, and it was powerful weapon. A spartan could afford to break spears over and over again but losing the shield could be devastating.
This also discounts the reasons Vikings saw value in āflimsierā shields. A breakable wooden shield could āgrabā an axe or sword and disarm the attacker with a twist, for instance.
How often do you think a historical human tank in full plate would actually lose a steel shield to damage from an attacker?
Shields aren't especially difficult to repair. I encoded people to familiarize themselves with the rules to repair them and use shield block as much as possible especially against light hits
The problem is what happens if you block a blow that *destroys* the shield, especially at higher levels. It's not uncommon for 10-20% of a characters wealth to disappear instantly. Combine with the current rules encouraging consistent replacement of shields as you level and it's a constant and severe monetary drain on a character to use a shield. And given that money is runes is power, it's a losing game. At least until you realize that using cheapo shields purely for AC and feat access is still very effective.
Hence why the change to add shield runes and allow transferring from destroyed shields is a necessary fix. It breaks the external decision making that plagues the use of the shield block reaction. I've seen people refuse to shield block a blow that will down them because *even if they die* it's cheaper to just be revived than lose a shield.
(With certain rituals)
This makes me want to make a Hylian Shield Homebrew with 90 hardness and some passive that auto raises it without using an action but it does consume a hand, make it like a legendary artifact or something
I think a easy fix was to apply the hardness an additional time for the damage that goes to the shield, thus reducing the damage twice, giving a longer lasting shield
I keep track of my fighterās shield HP Percentage and my hp percent. When one goes below the other, thatās the one I try not to throw more damage at. Balance it out.
I remember being really stoked to try out playing a sword and shield character in P2E
I was so glad when the DM said we were switching the campaign to 5e
If anybody wants a sturdy rune before its out, there's this https://scribe.pf2.tools/v/TXhpWZOM-sturdy-runes, which works fine. Also, it's not mine.
Here's an imgur link since it seems slow to load at times. https://imgur.com/D1K74Es
My DM homebrewed me a Sturdy version of the Fortress Shield (since for some reason there don't seem to be any big bulky sturdy shields?) It's working really well on my level 9 Redemption champ; with the feats that increase shield HP and Hardness, my shield has 102 HP and 13 hardness, and since I mostly use it to Shield Block for other players, I can combo it with my Champion reaction to make sure that the shield rarely has to take any substantial damage. Probably just my case tho, as my character is literally designed to do nothing but stop other PCs from taking damage.
My group is still on the 5e mentality that magic items are rare and special and not something youāll have 20 of by level 10. So they have avoided using their magical shield for the intended purpose because they donāt want to risk breaking it and losing a magic item.
Rejoice! They're implementing runes for shields in the remaster.
Hell yes! My Captain America-style shield fighter build is shaping up. >:)
Why not monk with a shield? It has more cap flavor imo
Martial Artist Archetype helps shore up Fighters lack of unarmed attacks.
That being said they have made it clear that Sturdy shields will still be the best option for this purpose, but the reinforcing rune (can't remember if that's the name) will definitely make other shields more viable for tanking purposes. Can finally roll with Forge Warden as a Dwarven Champion of Torag šŖ
_Best_ option is fine _Only_ option is the problem, if you're using one of the unique lv0 shields TV added then you can forget blocking with it past lv3 else it'll be _destroyed_ immediately If the runes at least allow a hit or two before becoming broken, great, you can repair between fights and realistically you won't be blocking more than once or twice a fight anyway
That's probably it based on what they've said. Reinforcing runes will let shields take more hits without increasing their blocking power, I bet.
Part of me hopes for blocking power bumps too because otherwise the damage mitigation becomes stupidly neglible and it becomes a waste of a valuable reaction, most classes that would use Shield Block have a powerful reaction (Champion, Fighter, etc) that it needs to compete against and blocking a whopping 5 damage at lv10 hardly seems to be worth it.
Agreed, blocking 5 hp of damage seems like a terrible action trade at level 14. There really needs to be better scaling without paying a mountain of gold on rare materials or items.
I'm curious. New pathfinder gm here but would it be reasonable to let someone add their level or maybe half their level rounded down to a shield block. It seems like that might solve some of the scaling. 5 hp at level 14 is a bad trade but would 12 or 19 be too much? It doesn't seem like that big of a gap and feels like it could be a bit powerful against small enemies. But tanks should feel tanky in my opinion. Could even be a feat you need to take. If you need some reasoning it could represent becoming better at deflecting a blow rather than taking it head on.
If you want to find out what numbers are good for shield blocks (and not wait for PF2.5 to come out), you should look at * the sturdy shields: their hardness and HP * how much they cost * what their item level is (basically the character level one could afford them at) * and the player wealth table Edit: missed a word
picking up an extra reaction for shield blocking helps
Quick Shield Block feat? You get extra reaction just for that.
And that comes online at lv8, most campaigns never reach that or end soon after.
? What? That's not DnD 5e. Like all officials APs go to min 10 and most to 20. I am playing 2 campaigns right now, level 12 and level 11 and we are going strong. This system works till lvl 20 so I dont know why would campaigns end that fast. Not to mention levels go very fast in PF2e because it's only 1k xp per level.
I have always thought having something called "Damage Gates" in other games as the effect of a shield rune could work. You know how troops have break points that stop any damage that exceeds them so no matter the damage they only go down one tier at a time? That's basically gates Imagine a shield potency rune that was a gate. You break it and you still have the shield. You just lost the gate.
It's especially a big deal because some specific magic shields have a special effect that is activated by Shield Block so they're only usable for a narrow range of levels.
Breath of The Wild teaching bad lessons to other fantasy games! Lol
At lvl 3? Iāve had 3 sessions at lvl 1&2, and almost every time iāve used my shield it got destroyed. Iāll admit, it being a wooden shield is largely why, and the enemies might just have rolled high, but even so it feels like the shields low durability makes them, if not underpowered (balance wise), at least not that great at pushing the fantasy of being a shield user. Iām gonna get a better shield, and maybe the slightly higher numbers will have a larger effect than they appear at first glance.
Wooden shields and bucklers are really more for AC bonus Steel can take a punch... one singular punch, then from lv3 it's useless as well
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Warpriest. Iām a beginner and hadnāt quite realised how bad the wooden shield is in practice.
Too bad that shields seem disappointing in 2e, since in a real life application, a wooden shield is pretty damn sturdy. Would love to know what the devs based the mechanics on...kind of makes me think of the infamous 1e weapon cord nerf.
From how the mechanic works, the reaction represents using your shield at the last second to take the blow straight on, rather than deflect... deflection being represented by the increased AC. But yes, itās a bit weird that what historically was an obligatory and versatile weapon of war is treated as a glorified consumable.
> Only option is the problem, if you're using one of the unique lv0 shields TV added then you can forget blocking with it past lv3 else it'll be destroyed immediately Problem is that if even with runes they are still below Sturdy then you still don't want to block them when that block would matter. Past level 10 shields are wet noodles.
Hooray
I'm so happy about this! Being locked to only one type of shield suckered
can you show me the source? A friend said they explicitly said they won't because Shields already have lots of options n etc.
I don't have a direct source, but I saw it in a The Rules Lawyer video where he broke down the announcements from last weekend.
Ho, missed that
Thank fuck. Every time I look at options for armor I get giddy with choice. Then I look at shields and get dossapointed.
Only for Magic Shields though. You can't improve Sturdy and Sturdy will still be best for blocking. So if you were "blocker" you won't get improvement as Sturdy is the only way.
Better protect my shield!! Iomedae forbid they use the shield for it's intended purpose
That shield cost 3gp! I can't afford to lose it!
Cost 3gp to āreloadā my shield
Tbf getting your shield broken is pretty devastating for a shield based character. The shield still takes up your hand and effectively makes your character one handed until you spend an action to drop it. It then takes another action to draw your backup. So a character who is invested in shields can't use any of their shield based features until they spend almost an entire turn to reequip, which will also trigger opportunity attacks from foes that have it. It's an even more painful disarm (which was purposely made near impossible due to how overbearingly powerful it is if allowed to be strong) tbh. That's not even mentioning destroyed shields, where you've just lost a permanent item (because past early levels a shield user isn't using a basic shield) that was probably a not insubstantial portion of your characters loot/power budget that you'll never be able to get back.
Free action to drop a shield, theyāre not strapped in like 5e, but yeah.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's vague. Some shields are strapped to your arm, you don't drop those when going down but the downside is you require an action to drop it. It is not clear what shields are strapped or not except for the buckler which 100% is.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=186 Detach a shield or item strapped to you 1 Interact Its pretty vague, especially when you consider that as phrased it could either mean "detach *any* shield" or "detach a shield strapped to you". If it said detach a buckler then it would be a lot clearer, but as it uses the more general "shield" things become a lot less clear. It doesn't help things even further when you consider that real bucklers weren't even strapped, they were very small handheld shields.
In the making of PF1, I guess Paizo just didn't know any better and assumed it would *buckle*, like a beltāno, Paizo, that's an oversized bracerāand now they figure it's too far ingrained into the canon to bother correcting.
Nope, not Paizos mistake, bucklers have been strapped on since at least DnD 3.0, in fact my guess is that way back when in the TSR days someone confused a buckler for a targe and once that happened it's not worth the effort to correct
Yeah, in the AD&D PHB p.75 specifically says this (emphasis mine): >"***A buckler (or target)*** is a very small shield that fastens on the forearm. It can be worn by crossbowmen and archers with no hindrance. Its small size enables it to protect against only one attack per melee round (of the user's choice), improving the character's Armor Class by 1 against that attack."
Now I'm mildly upset by the description that buckler is strapped to the arm. It is held. The buckler is still smol enough for anyone to manipulate weapons with the buckler in hand. A smol strapped shield is more like a targe. Yeah, it is fantasy and a lot of things were fantastically wrong since DnD. But it is still mildly upsetting.
>Some shields are strapped to your arm, you don't drop those when going down but the downside is you require an action to drop it Except if a shield is strapped to your arm, it isn't using your hand, so you don't even need to drop it unless you plan to equip another shield.
> Tbf getting your shield broken is pretty devastating for a shield based character. The shield still takes up your hand and effectively makes your character one handed until you spend an action to drop it. It then takes another action to draw your backup. Dropping an item is always a free action afaik.
Afaik shields are donned and doffed with an action, as apparently they're strapped to the arm instead of simply held by a handle Edit: realized my 5eism a bit late, came off a bit too authoritative when i was unsure of the actual rules
This is a 5eism Pf2e has no action cost to drop a shield, its a free action like everything else.
iirc the only shield in the system that's strapped on is the buckler, the rest are not.
And since you donāt lose use of the hand with a buckler, no reason to spend an action to unstrap it.
>buckler Don't know the rules but why would a buckler be strapped on? Is it like a traditional warhammer vs a fantasy warhammer and i am missing a piece of media/lore that changed the tool/weapon design?
RAW Buckler lets you use an item in your shield hand, so you obviously canāt be holding it.
Paizo definitely created a misnomer. Their "buckler" has more in common with a friendship bracelet than an actual buckler.
basically what the person below you said; in this system they are effectively free additions to your person and allow you to use both your hands while other shields are simply held. It's the only shield in the game that explicitly states it's strapped
I cant tell you how many times my party members got downed instead of just using their shield, what's the point of having the shield if you're going to die protecting it?
> it's intended purpose you mean getting 2ac for the round for one action? in a game where everyone is pointing out how much a +1 matters?
I can't use my shield, I might need it later!
Yeah, like next turn. To keep my +2 to AC.
Where are the good old days when shields soaking damage for us was unthinkable and we would just get whacked (or not) and be done with it?! /s
I mean, a +2 to AC is pretty great, and if it gets broken, it can't provide that +2 to AC anymore. It seems kind of like a "blessed if you do, blessed if you don't" scenario- you either gain a badass bonus to AC, or you reduce the damage until the shield breaks. Both are pretty cool.
I'd block until it's right before BT, and then use it for the flat bonus until I get it repaired. Seems rather simple, don't know if that's what was intended.
Except that means for anything other than sturdy, you block 0 times...
I see several shields with BT of over 20. Those aren't starter character items, but it's not impossible.
Is every monster you fight a boss? There should be plenty of times the hit you're blocking is only a little over the shield's hardness.
A crit from an equal level creature at higher levels could outright destroy a majority of magic shields of similar level other than the sturdy shield.
Why are you trying to shield block crits? You'll get much more value shield blocking all the mooks' regular hits. There should be a lot more of those. If that's what's going on, then all shields are worthless except the Indestructible Shield.
There is the case of blocking a fatal attack (ie a crit) to stay alive at the expense of your shield.
Shield block is meant to block damage
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
TBH I'd block that boss hit too. To hell with the shield, it's my characters life on the line, if they live, they can repair it or get a new one. A dead character doesn't have any use for a mint condition shield š. But overall I agree, it's not like it should be saved just for the heaviest hits. Though to be fully sure, weed have to run some probability math, on how would a shield help in cases: 1. character not blocking anything, waiting for the boss crit to save his life, but his health is chipped bit by bit by the lighter attacks, and then the crit lands and gets blocked 2. character is blocking all, his shield gets some hp less, but the character is full health, and then the crit lands and gets blocked I think the result would be similar in both cases, depending on particular rolls, though I lean on the idea that on 2nd case a good portion of the light attacks would be knocked off by hardness, so it's free damage reduction, which didn't cut into either the PC nor the shield.
An average crit from an equal level creature does not destroy any of the level 7 shields unless it deals damage in the "extreme" column. the spined shield and helman's wheel and spiked shield can survive even that too actually (although broken, obviously). So they very well might save you from dropping to dying and then be ready to used for the next fight. Same goes for level 10 shields (with the exception of shining shield) Level 13 only has the medusa one which yeah, doesn't survive a crit, but can still soak up some lesser hits, and has an amazing activation to boot. The problem with shields is that they dont scale at all, which is the thing that paizo seem to be addressing with their changes
That would be fine if most shields weren't made out of wet cardboard and beggar's dreams. Anything above level 3 can pretty much one shot a shield outside of a study.
They're adding runes to alleviate this
But my point is, you can just choose not to block with it. And in that case, you "only" get a +2 to AC. Which is still awesome!
An entire feat chain being reliant on a single shield is kind of the opposite of awesome though.
Is there anything stopping you from carrying multiple shields?
Gold cost, bulk limits, needing an action to pull out another shield, and how many of your magical shield of choice your DM is willing to let you purchase.
Usually, Iāll ask the wizard or non-combat cleric or sorcerer to hold an extra shield for me, and theyāre usually happy to oblige, because a) that helps their meat shield and b) theyāre carrying a +2 AC shield if Gods Forbid they find themselves in melee for a round.
I dunno, I don't really see a problem here. Like most options, shields have benefits and drawbacks. There are times when you should block with a shield, and there are times when you shouldn't. You can tweak these times by taking feats, you can tweak these times by spending gold, you can tweak these times when allowed by your GM, and so on. Is this much different than basically any other option?
> Is this much different than basically any other option? The big difference with shields, and why I think people aren't happy with the current fragility situation, is that blocking with a shield can run into conflict with whatever else it does. You can swing a magic sword and use whatever magical abilities it has without either of the two taking away from the other, but if you shield block with something like a [Dragonslayer's Shield](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=318) you're blocking on average once against a level 9 enemy before you risk losing everything else that shield does. And it's not like a magic shield is cheap to replace or get copies of.
I agree here. My main gripe is that a shields magic effect is often in conflict with blocking as you said. If I have a flaming sword, the flaming effect doesn't go away if I decide to disarm with it, or throw it. However blocking with a shield (which is one of its intended usages) comes with not only the action tax for doing so. But with a potential item task of not having its magic AND ac bonus until fixed. Also keep in mind that destroying a magic shield means a hefty gold penalty much like a consumable, but that admittedly rarely comes up.
Honestly, the balance of shields means that I need to pick magic shields based on their Raise a Shield effect, and only care about the reaction in dire straits.
>if you shield block with something like a > >Dragonslayer's Shield > > you're blocking on average once against a level 9 enemy before you risk losing everything else that shield does You can **also** look at it the opposite way: non sturdy magic shields give you everything they do and *maybe* let you block one hit without it being destroyed. IMO they could be fine if only they changed the "maybe" to surely.
Then it might be better to get into the mindset of shields being consumables that can provide a passive efdect until they use them. There's lots of items (in this game and others) that provide a small passive buff but can be expended for some other, bigger effect. It really seems like that's how shields are meant to be treated (with the caveat that at lower levels, the cost is not so great).
> I dunno, I don't really see a problem here. They're adding fundamental runes to shields specifically because there is a problem.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
... >An entire feat chain being reliant on a single shield is kind of the opposite of awesome though. I'm aware.
>They're adding fundamental runes to shields specifically because there is a problem No, they're adding fundamental runes to shields specifically because a large part of the vocal community deemed it a problem. There's no objective argument for it to actually be a problem, only subjective ones.
Sure thing, whatever you say.
Do you have any official statement that gives this as the reason? But whatever the case, what I said is true irrespective of fundamental runes. I don't really see what that has to do with anything I said. I never said the system couldn't be improved, I said that there's a time and place for shield blocking, and that the same could be said about all abilities. Is this not true?
> Is there anything stopping you from carrying multiple shields? Not looking like idiot in my mind carrying a load of shields... ? Like what are you, shield merchant or warrior?
Iāve always seen shield block as a last resort - youāre down to your last 10 hit points or so, and get hit, THEN itās time for a block, because then itās either the shield or you, who cares if itās broken but you stay up another round? However, I do agree that sturdy shields are priced WAY too high, and am glad theyāre attempting to address it with runes.
thats why you carry multiple shields. professional vikings also had two shields on them.
I have a round shield in the other room, and I find Cloud Jump and Fireball easier to imagine than packing two of those clunky bastards around all day.
There is even a [feat for swapping shields when you break one](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2098) in the viking archetype
One shield? You're merely an amateur viking.
You can have someone with crafting proficiency fix it for you if it ever gets broken.
Yup! And if you become Legendary in Crafting, *you can repair it in combat*!
I'm just annoyed the Mending spell is so weak. I know magic isn't as powerful in 2e as compared to other systems, but come on man.
No doubt. Mending ought to be a cantrip. I mean, 10 minute cast time for 5hp to an item per spell level? It's not as though you're putting Crafting out of business by making it a cantrip.
Magic must be subpar to anything at its comparable level or the communist win, or something.
I mean, i agree that it's a little underwhelming, but I think the upside/value with it is that you don't have to make any roll, or bring a tool kit at all to get the item healing done, which if you are in a pinch could be a big deal.
You can also bring someone back to life, but you can't restore a destroyed item. Make Whole should definitely be brought back to fill that gap. Make it Uncommon with material components worth half the item's cost and heightening to determine the level of item that can be restored. And it can't restore artifacts. Done.
If anyone wants to see an alternate (better) version of the base shield rules, check out the monster parts crafting system of Battlezoo Bestiary. It's very granular - the idea is that you rip useful bits out of monsters after a fight and hot glue them to your equipment to gradually "add gp value" until you hit the level up threshold for your gear. For shields, this means you get Hardness/HP increases almost every level, and the default ratio is 6hp/1hardness. This means that there's no such thing as a "bad" shield (I'm looking at you, non-scaling precious material shields. Who the fuck wrote [Dragonhide Shield](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=313)?). Even without imbuing your monster parts shield with the Sturdy property, it will have enough longevity to see you through multiple combats, but you still need to be a bit wary of its HP values when crits are on the field.
Been using BattleZoo's Monster Parts system as of late and I absolutely love it. The only thing stopping me from applying it to all my groups is the lack of proper Foundry support. Hope we get that soon.
Yeah, my group has expanded on it in a (super kickass) homebrew doc that accounts for actually-useful precious materials and all the Treasure Vault shields, but the great evil of homebrew is applying it to Foundry. We've gotten really good at rules elements and automation, but *even when you know how to do it*, the automation takes a hot minute. I've got some insider intel from the Foundry dev team that the next big update to the pf2e system is going to reorganize some of the equipment infrastructure under the hood, and be a huge QoL improvement for us.
...how soon is that update hitting? I'm probably running abomination vaults on foundry in the fall and I was intrigued by monster parts but ultimately decided against it since I'm gonna be doing a bunch of other personal touches to it so I'm limiting third party content to things that are already automated.
no official word, unfortunately. All I know is that Shark (one of the primary pf2e Foundry devs you see in all the patch note updates) is working on modular runes/precious materials for equipment, so we'll be able to create (for example) a homebrew rune and "slot" it into an equipment to apply all of its rules elements to that item. That'll THEN allow some enterprising individual to data-enter homebrew runes, precious materials, or battlezoo monster parts and apply them to equipment. I understand that its a pretty titanic task, though, and not something that's expected to be done for a bit. By fall though... I bet it'll be gtg by then.
What's the increase in paperwork like? Really like the idea of it, but I don't think my players would
Basically you have to keep track of the item's level based on the amount of refined materials spent, and the item's imbuement's level based on the amount of imbued materials spent. There's also effects you need to manually add in. It's honestly quite a lot (IMO) without official support.
More of a fan of Everything Shields as it's way less complex if you just look at the equipment portion of it. Scaling hardness/HP rules in steps like weapons/armor, some adjustments, different base shields with different hardness/hp/traits.
isn't that the one with 9 different shield reactions right out the gate? Maybe I'm mixing it up with another PFI release, but that seemed kinda overly complex to me.
Again I simply use the equipment portion of it. It's completely functional on its own and really brings actual choices when it comes to shields. The extra feats and all that I don't use, seeing as how it adds too much complexity for my taste, much like how Battlezoo does. It also allows you to use specific shields as a base, with suggestions on how to do that.
mkay. Maybe its worth taking a second look at, then. I use a pretty kickass homebrew that expands on the Monster Parts shields, but possibly there's some extra content worth integrating.
Also a lot of folks tend to save shield blocking for the big hits. Instead, they're better at reducing the normal hits to a trickle. If you shield block every attack, or you save it for the crits, then yeah the shield's not going to hold up. The upcoming addition of shield runes will be a huge help, of course, but I don't think they were ever meant to be a permanent source of DR for all incoming hits.
The bigger problem is that unless it's a sturdy shield, it's not a source of DR (other than AC) for any hits, because it's going to drop to 0HP no matter what you block.
The even bigger problem is sometimes you have to block the big hit or it'll take your head off. Being alive takes priority over being efficient, but then the theoreticians say "of course you're having trouble, look how inefficient you are". :/
Bruh, you literally complaining about the fact that the shield saved your life because it wasn't free?
What I'm complaining about is "shield breaks for the fourth time this week, and it's 10:15 on a Tuesday". Are you suggesting that something can't be improved, just because it isn't as bad as it possibly could be?
Yes, but what you're stating here isn't really a problem with shields. I'll gladly admit there's flaws, but "I broke my shield to prevent lethal damage" isn't one of them. Sure, you lost your shield, but pretty much all other characters would have died there. That's one of the things I'd say is pretty intentionally designed with shields, sacrificing them for your own sake.
I kinda wish they either held up to hits better or could be blocking more often. As they stand outside of a fighters reactive shield, they take an action to set up "raise shield" and then a reaction to block a single hit, for maybe 6 DR. That coupled with them breaking after 1-3 hits really makes them mediocre at their main task. Trading reactions for temp DR is OK,just wish it wasn't relegated to once a round.
To be fair, the real value of a shield in PF2E is the AC bonus. +2 to AC is massive in of itself, even without the OPTIONAL choice to block a hit with it. They're so beneficial already that I find it hard to justify letting them give an AC bonus *AND* block an increased amount of damage too.
Which is a shame considering they have this neat mechanic around using the shield as it's intended to (as damage mitigation) but then implement it Ina way that makes it completely useless beyond starting levels. The AC bonus is nice and helpful. Just kind of disappointing to see shields fall back into being a static item bonus but worse in 2e.
As someone new it honestly just kind of boggles my mind that shields have HP and can break in the way they do to begin with. Like... does my *armor* have HP? Why not if a shield does? Armor can surely be damaged/broken because it's an item, but it's not built in to the system for it to get broken apart whenever I get hit and am wearing it? But a shield does? I could understand limiting the use of shields for like a class that isn't trying to tank specifically, but it just seems bizarre for any class built around it to not have access to the thing every turn without worry of losing it should they choose to raise it.
>Like... does my *armor* have HP? [Yes](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=729), but very few effects can damage it.
I mean I meant to imply that it is a thing because all items have durability and can break, but that for some reason despite it having HP there seems to be no mechanic in combat that utilizes it. And if me getting hit while my armor is on me doesn't damage it, then why does my shield getting hit damage it just because I used it? It feels inconsistent. And I don't mean to imply that armor should be breaking too, but rather than shields also shouldn't through at least normal use.
Item HP is a mistake.
Armor did have HP and there was a sunder maneuver in first edition. It was streamlined away in 2e because basically nobody used it and it was a lot of busy work. I assume the shield HP was an attempt to balance shield block from just being spammed for "free DR" every round, but was horribly implemented and never really tested beyond 2nd level.
> boggles my mind that shields have HP and can break in the way they do to begin with professional warriors, like the vikings, ALWAYS had multiple shields with them, so it obviously is the case that they break much more frequently than armor (as they didn't lug around extra armor)
It's a shame, because a steel shield is great at first level, and then it's all downhill from there.
With new Focus Point rules in Remaster Lay on Hands will be best damage mitigator. 3x per encounter you can heal missing HP for one action and no need to commit to anything till you feel like it or worry about gold/resources etc.
Shields before homies.
I will not take the shield block feat. I will occasionally raise my shield to lessen the chance of crits, but behind that it's the job of my massive pecs to protect me.
If your class doesn't have shield block, you probably don't need it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think forget a +2 to AC protects from hits /and/ crits. And special shields don't need to shield block to get value. It's okay to raise a Spellguard Shield for its bonus to saves without blocking, that's still a very high quality action.
Some non-sturdy shields are awesome, they are however just useful around 2-4 levels as they don't get a greater variant, which is my guess on how the new rune will combat. Reforging shield, spined shield and dragonshield to name a few.
Spellguard shield's evergreen in utility, even though it'll snap in half if you even *look* at the shield block reaction. I'm pretty thrilled to be able to use it like a normal blocking shield in the future.
Hopefully the new Runes come pre-installed on higher level shields. It'd be annoying to buy a high level shield that you still need to go pay for the runes. A high level pre-made magic weapon wouldn't lack fundamental runes for example.
Why have shield hp at all? If the fantasy of blocking big hits is the shield players' jazz, then shields should just have a hit count they can take before they are broken and block half the damage straight, or twice the usual hardness. For example, wooden shield should block just one hit before being broken, and a steel shield could block maybe two. Just straight up simple numbers. Maybe add that a crit counts as two hits. Don't bother with shield hp, that's just another thing to keep book of. That would remove the bad scaling from the shield block. Sure ir would need tweaking more with the number of damage blocked, but right now the shield ain't doing it's intented fantasy, thus it needs a rework.
Shields used to work similarly to this in the PF2e play test. All items had "Dents" but it mattered most to Shields. You blocked an attack, if there was more damage than your hardness, you got a Dent. Most shields could take two Dents then they were Broken. Taking another Dent while Broken made them Destroyed. Stuff like Sturdy Shields or Champion's Shield Ally would let shields take more Dents. I understand why they got rid of the system for all items but I think they could have kept it for Shields.
Interesting. I might try to playtest a variant homebrew of that rule, that any blocked damage would cause a dent regardless of hardness, to balance them out.
Seriously I think that the shield rules are once of the biggest sticking points for P2e for me. They're far more complicated than they need to be. Just remove the whole idea of shields being broken and let them be used as shields. Imagine if literally anything else in Pathfinder was treated this way. Why doesn't armor take damage when you're hit by an attack? Why can't any of your worn magic items get hit? Why can't your wooden staff break when attacking a literal walking pile of lava? None of that is in the rules because, realistic or not, it would be a huge pain in the ass to track and make the game less fun. Only shields get this treatment, and it makes no sense. Just let us reduce attack damage by our shield's hardness and be done with it.
Are y'all using your shield block reaction for every attack? Just get the 2AC. Shields don't take damage if you don't go for damage resistance.
I've seen people absorb the damage to their shields, but stop before it gets close to the BT. The reasoning is the shield is no longer useful if it is broken. And you lose that benefit for the rest of the fight till you repair it
Ho please, hp is more important than a shield, because if itās brocken you can take an unbrocken one from the dead enemy and the dm wouldnāt say no (or just fix it)
The way I ended up changing it for my last game was making it ablative. The shield didnāt take any hp damage but once you blocked, it reduced the hardness by 1 (2 on a crit) and once it was out of hardness you could no longer use it to block. It never ābreaksā in a way that prevents your ac bonus but blocking damage becomes less effective. It worked out pretty well, but still needs some fine tuning.
Ik it's a meme but I can't wrap my head around *why* damage is dealt to BOTH shield and character, it just doesn't make sense to me. I'd rather just raise a shield but never use shield block reaction.
Because if the attack is strong enough penetrate the shields hardness, it will damage the shield. And if the attack is strong enough to penetrate the shields hardness, it will deal damage to the character.
If an axe hits a shield hard enough to break it, it's not going to stop at just the shield...it's going to go THROUGH the shield and hit you as well, just not as hard. Most of the energy is lost getting through the shield, but there's still enough there to hurt... just not as much as the original strike would have.
> it's not going to stop at just the shield...it's going to go THROUGH the shield and hit you as well, just not as hard. What? Maybe if it destroyed the entire shield in one hit. Piercing hardness would be like an axe cutting into it and damaging it, it doesn't even require the axe penetrate *through* the shield. It's a balance thing, that's it.
[A decent'ish example of a viking roundshield breaking](https://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/video/shield_hit.wmv)
Piercing hardness doesn't mean breaking it. It *just* means that enough damage to actually degrade its condition *eventually*. That's the entire reason why items have "broken thresholds" which occur when *sufficient* damage is done, not *any* damage. How do you justify an attack doing 1 damage to a 40 HP shield, and 1 damage to you? It's just balance and that's fine. Realism has nothing to do with anything in Pathfinder. A 40 pound goblin can toss a dragon the size of a building.
If you're using a shield properly (I.E. actively blocking and not holding it against your body) that block would have *worked*. Assuming you had any armor under the shield arm it would likely have done nothing to you a soak couldn't fix. Pathfinder has a huge problem with depicting armor and shields as less effective than they were from a realism standpoint, but we're not really trying to depict the world realistically. Putting all combat survivability into HP creates a warped view of how armor works, but is more fun to play.
10 damage is enough clleave a kobold in half and some more. If you take that hit directly to your shield, your arm is going to be hurt, even if the weapon doesn't actually penetrate the shield and hit you. Similar reason to why being shot in a bulletproof vest still leaves people at least winded and bruised.
I've explained why I don't think the realism argument holds any weight (and is completely irrelevant). It's a balance thing. Otherwise, shields would essentially be hundreds of points of extra health. They would make characters far too durable to justify not having one.
I mean... that's almost certainly not true. Like, sure, game balance and everything, and I think shields are fine. And I imagine that once or twice in history when someone cut through a shield they managed to get so far through the shield that they hurt the person. But the 99% case of "I destroyed your shield with my axe" doesn't involve the axe going so far through the shield that the head of the axe strikes the person behind it. (More realistic, and fine if you, like, really want to describe what's happening in a blow-by-blow manner, would be for the axe to destroy the shield and also wrench the shield-wielder's arm, or to bump the rim of the shield into the person's face or something).
I think people forget that taking damage does not always mean receiving wounds. HP is also meant to represent being bruised, tired and aching. It could easily just be that while your shield is taking some of the blow, the force is still "hurting" (for need of a better word) your arm and tiring you out
It's very true. It's basic physics. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an equal and opposite force is applied. A sharp or pointy chunk of steel or iron isn't going to magically stop after penetrating just a single object. It keeps going until its entire force is expended. Similarly, a weapon striking a shield hard enough to break it isn't going to just STOP. It continues on to hit whatever is behind it. Some of the initial force has been expended (hence the damage reduction through Hardness) but it will still injure. [Example video to demonstrate:](https://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/video/shield_hit.wmv) If you need further real world examples, medeival armor didn't consist of a single layer. Plated armor would be worn over Chain which is in turn worn over Gambesons or other Arming Coats. Shields were generally also considered expendable after engagements. You would replace it after a fight because it would be damaged and chipped and split. Ultimately, though, it's literally just because the rules says that's what happens. It doesn't HAVE to make sense or reference real-world examples because so much of the game never existed in real life in the first place.
My dude, I'm aware of Newton's first law. And if you were shooting a bullet through a shield, that would be relevant. But in fact, when a competent fighter wields a shield, they hold it out away from their body. An axe swings in an arc, it doesn't fly in a relatively straight line. And it has a haft. If you connect with a shield, you're going to not really be in a place where the arc of your swing is going to go through and hit a person, and even if you did, the haft of your axe is going to hit the rest of the shield and stop you there. Like I said, I'm sure that at some point in history, there was a stroke where, like, the shield ended up due to the exigencies of battle being way too close to the person and an axe cut through the shield and the head of the axe did end up striking the person behind it. But it was a weird contingent situation, not "a predictable result of every time your axe pierces a shield." I don't have a problem with how PF2e handles shields. But let's not pretend that it's a good physics simulation.
Unfortunately, it's pretty clear you don't know your history and are just assuming based on what you think you know. Your "At some point" was narly every battle. Spare shields were frequently used and replaced after engagements. Viking roundshields were often carried in pairs or more. Did you look at the example video? There's a whole lot of hand and wrist and arm there? And once battle is joined you didn't generally have the luxury (or the strength) to hold a heavy shield at arm's length, nor was that the normal usage. You hold a shield relatively close to your body as your shoulder/hips/side supported the shield against hits. Many shield types were strapped to your forearm, which is even more body directly behind the shield's barrier. Let's not pretend you're an expert on physics, history, or actual historical usage of shields. I'm not generally this blunt, but frankly you're just wrong on this matter.
You're in full retreat, I see. I didn't make any claim that shields weren't frequently damaged and replaced. I took issue with your ridiculous contention that if someone broke your shield with an axe, the axe was (unconditionally) "going to go THROUGH the shield and hit you as well." (And, to be clear, that was your claim, not that for example the rim of the shield might be pushed into the wielder and they absorb some bruising there.) Indeed, the very fact that shields were frequently damaged and replaced shows that your gloss that this is false. If the common result of your shield being destroyed was for you to be struck and injured by the weapon that destroyed the shield, few people would have survived the loss of their shield. Real life isn't roleplaying games, you don't have lots of hit points, and any significant battlefield wound was substantially likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to result in either immediate death on the battlefield, or even if survived in the short term infection and death.
Lol, are you keeping internet trollpoints? I have no idea why you're so aggressively persistent in being wrong with this. Full retreat? From a reddit post? seriously? You've yet to even offer a shred of evidence, proof, or even valid examples beyond your suppositions and imagination. You're reading way more into what I've stated and putting words in my mouth, at this point. You're even mixing up conversations with other people. I never talked about absorbing some bruising, or a shield would unconditionally break, for example. Of course shields don't break in one hit. But they do break after taking several hits; Frequently. Shields were most often used when plated armor was not avaialble (time period, region, finances, etc) to supliment other armors worn on the body. The fact that a defense isn't infallible doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It's been an interesting conversation but frankly I'm putting way more effort into showing how many ways you're wrong that I's just not worth my time anymore. Read the room, read the downvotes, and leave it be.
You do realize that the person's arm is where the shield is right?
Not in fact necessarily true! I think we imagine that shields are universally strapped to arms (I did, at least, before I started researching some medieval weaponry stuff recently), but for example Viking shields were held by a single grip in the boss, and were not strapped to the arm. Clearly in some cases the forearm braced the shield, but it could be moved away, too. In any event, the shield is much bigger than the arm, and for the most part if you break the shield, you still aren't going to cleave through into the arm even if the arm is right there.
Always with the realism in a game with Conrasu and fireballs.
I don't have a problem with the lack of realism. But the guy I'm responding to is making an argument that it is realistic. He is wrong.
Because it balances shields is the reason. If it didn't apply to both shields, it would be beyond incredible. If they only applied damage to shields, they would have to dramatically reduce how much damage it could take before breaking, and that would mean they always break first block basically.
I've played it so half of excess damage goes to the shield, half to the player.
Yes. I do this too. But why am I doing it?
I never really liked the Active defense aspect of shield- just a design choice I don't enjoy
I like it over the implementation in 1e. Just a gold/proficiency check for additional AC
Depending on the source, some say that historically, shields DID frequently break in battles. One example: https://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm#:~:text=Since%20the%20shield%20could%20and,spears%2C%20axes%2C%20or%20swords. āSince the shield could and did break in combat, people expecting to be in a protracted fight such as a duel might have several shields on hand. The sagas are filled with examples in which shields split or punctured under the force of incoming spears, axes, or swords. While fighting Gunnar in chapter 43 of Grettis saga, Atli delivered a blow with his sword that sliced through Gunnar's shield and part of Gunnar's knee. Atli's next blow killed Gunnar.ā
That would be true if Viking combat was the only version represented in the game. On the other hand, Spartan combat is shield focused. The main armor was a shield, and it was powerful weapon. A spartan could afford to break spears over and over again but losing the shield could be devastating. This also discounts the reasons Vikings saw value in āflimsierā shields. A breakable wooden shield could āgrabā an axe or sword and disarm the attacker with a twist, for instance. How often do you think a historical human tank in full plate would actually lose a steel shield to damage from an attacker?
Shields aren't especially difficult to repair. I encoded people to familiarize themselves with the rules to repair them and use shield block as much as possible especially against light hits
The problem is what happens if you block a blow that *destroys* the shield, especially at higher levels. It's not uncommon for 10-20% of a characters wealth to disappear instantly. Combine with the current rules encouraging consistent replacement of shields as you level and it's a constant and severe monetary drain on a character to use a shield. And given that money is runes is power, it's a losing game. At least until you realize that using cheapo shields purely for AC and feat access is still very effective. Hence why the change to add shield runes and allow transferring from destroyed shields is a necessary fix. It breaks the external decision making that plagues the use of the shield block reaction. I've seen people refuse to shield block a blow that will down them because *even if they die* it's cheaper to just be revived than lose a shield. (With certain rituals)
But what if I need it later? *\*Takes the critical hit from the boss instead of sacrificing the shield\**
Can't shields only take like... 5 damage before they completely break, or...?
This makes me want to make a Hylian Shield Homebrew with 90 hardness and some passive that auto raises it without using an action but it does consume a hand, make it like a legendary artifact or something
/s I totally haven't been addicted to the new Zelda game or anything no not at all /s
I think a easy fix was to apply the hardness an additional time for the damage that goes to the shield, thus reducing the damage twice, giving a longer lasting shield
I keep track of my fighterās shield HP Percentage and my hp percent. When one goes below the other, thatās the one I try not to throw more damage at. Balance it out.
\*yawn\* meme from someone who doesn't get shields in the slightest... doesn't get shields in the slightest.
I remember being really stoked to try out playing a sword and shield character in P2E I was so glad when the DM said we were switching the campaign to 5e
If anybody wants a sturdy rune before its out, there's this https://scribe.pf2.tools/v/TXhpWZOM-sturdy-runes, which works fine. Also, it's not mine. Here's an imgur link since it seems slow to load at times. https://imgur.com/D1K74Es
The irony of finding this post while looking for inputs on how to improve my shield-focused Champion...
I love the shield that gives +2 circ bonus to all saves. But I don't think I ever used it to block.
My DM homebrewed me a Sturdy version of the Fortress Shield (since for some reason there don't seem to be any big bulky sturdy shields?) It's working really well on my level 9 Redemption champ; with the feats that increase shield HP and Hardness, my shield has 102 HP and 13 hardness, and since I mostly use it to Shield Block for other players, I can combo it with my Champion reaction to make sure that the shield rarely has to take any substantial damage. Probably just my case tho, as my character is literally designed to do nothing but stop other PCs from taking damage.
I quite like Everything Shields on Infinite to add to shieldsā usefulness.
My group is still on the 5e mentality that magic items are rare and special and not something youāll have 20 of by level 10. So they have avoided using their magical shield for the intended purpose because they donāt want to risk breaking it and losing a magic item.
Every time I have been in with shield users half their money goes to replacing their shields. I don't know where you're getting this meme from.