Not telling players the amount damage is certainly more realistic, but in my experience in a strategy game giving players the information they need to make good tactical decisions is more enjoyable for them and leads to a better experience. I personally have no problem telling that sort of thing to my players so they can get the most out of their abilities. As the GM I lose nothing, since the PCs are supposed to win anyway, and the player gets to feel awesome instead of wasting their reaction and feeling bad about it.
Also it just slows combat down a lot if you have to pause to let them decide if they're going to block before telling them their damage and it forces the GM to keep in mind which players have or haven't raised their shields and have the feat so they know to pause and give the player the option. So much quicker and easier to just say "the goblin hits you for 12 damage" and then let them decide if they are willing to block that.
As others have stated I probably am going to be more likely as a DM to either have a note of the characters' resistance or ask them when they have declared the Raise Shield Action, so that I can determine if they will take damage when a damage roll is made, so that there's some mystery. Sometimes I might say "A big hit" or "a small hit" or some other description - "that looks like its going to be painful" etc to inform battle awareness, without an actual total until the block is either declared or not. I think your way is fine, and great that it works at your table. This is the way Id be likely to resove it.
In online games though, a lot of the time the macros have damage at the same time as the attack roll to save time, and in this case, the player would know anyway. That's a slightly different dynamic and I don't think I'd go to the effort of changing the macros for online play and let it be.
Hey Dave. Good video as always. Just a reminder that you need to state your jargon before using the shortened version. You never mention that "DR" is Damage Resistance in this video. I know this might seem obvious to some, but it's not necessarily. The general guideline is the first time you say the term, use the full term *and* the shortened version (in this case "What if I have Damage Resistance or DR?" - then every other time use just DR).
If you don't know how much damage you take will be a constant gamble and in general pf2e is very explicit when you are gamble so... I read it in the same way
I would disagree with the first part if there weren't already so many things for me to be tracking during combat. Also, I'm not going to ask if my PCs want to use their reaction or what their resistances are before I state how much and the type of damage they are taking. So if the player asks if they can use their shield block reaction after I say the damage, I'm not going to worry about it.
If I raise a tower shield and then use take cover, do I gain a +4 bonus to reflex saves against area effects or a +2 bonus? Same question for the stealth benefits.
its kinda needed, as with the way damage work with shields they would be way less useful if you didnt know when to use it and not, its best used to mitigate lower dmg regularly then using it on big attacks, other wise your only going to be preventing dmg once or twice where as you use it on lower number closer to its hardness, you will block more dmg through out the fight
That's pretty much my reasoning too for knowing the value of the damage first. If I have damage reduction and it would reduce my damage to zero, then there is no trigger for shield block.
I read "2 Shield Question" and thought it was going to be about wielding 2 shields, which as far as I know doesn't have much of a benefit. Yo can attack with a shield boss or shield spikes, and if one breaks you have a spare, but that's about it, right? Also, another question that came at my table is if you can enchant a shield with runes. You can put weapon runes on them if you have a boss/spikes, but not armour runes, right? Then there's the Spellguard Shield and others that's more what you'll expect from an enchanted shield.
Right -- "Shields" are not "Armor" in 2nd edition, so you cannot etch armor runes on a shield. But there are magic shields you can find, buy or craft... you just don't get the flexibility of magic runes with them.
If an ally is adjacent to you while you are raising your tower shield, can they take cover behind it? Do they have standard cover while it is raised? Only lesser cover? How does this interact with the level 2 Devoted Guardian feat for Fighters and Champions?
I have several questions: 1) How DM is expected to deal with persisted damage done to shield with attacks that got blocked (flasks in Dragon's Crest shield adjustment or generic spell/creature attacks with modifiers)? Are those attacks subjected to be countered by hardness or not? 2) Is DM supposed to dissect any damage type of multy sourced attack as soon as attack got blocked with a shield to determine which type of those the shield is immune to? What happens next? Do all remaining atacks penetrate hardness separately or not? 3) How many actions does it take to drop a shield (Release/Interact+Release)? I am aware about strapped/wielded dilemma as well as rules not mentioning what "detach shield or strapped item - 1 interaction" actially means - to detach stoved shield or detach wielded shield. I'd like to know if there are any definitive solutions since new edition is coming out... How does it correspond with shove ability from shield augmentation that allows the user of any affected shield to willingly drop it for a free action or turn it into meteor shield? 4) What was Gauntlet buckler made for? It is more expensive buckler that can't be upgraded with any adjustments and it takes the same amount of 2 interactions to be raised as a shield that isn't wielded at all, AFAICS. And it might be even worse because it is unclear if "Nimble Shield Hand" feat overrides Bulk L limitation for the gauntlet.
Is my assumption correct, that you can't benefit from (lesser) cover, when you raise a shield (excluding the tower shield)? Both are circumstance mods and as far as I know, they don't stack, right? So if you are on a horse, a shield becomes less valuable, right?
Well, that's tricky because every +1 to AC is highly valuable, so if you have a shield that gives the +2 to AC when raised and you're still benefitting from the lesser cover while mounted, raising your shield will still give you a net +1 to AC, but it also means you can occasionally make the decision to use your 3rd action for something else if you don't think you need to raise your shield in a certain round and still be well enough off from the lesser cover
@@mattsullivan2458 But you could also use take "take cover" action instead of "raise shield". That would give you the same benefit *and* it would also work against reflex saving throws *and* you would have the second hand free to use a 2-handed weapon for example. The only downside is, that you can't use shield block that way.
@@Tilim1st unless I'm missing a line somewhere, you can't normally use lesser cover to take cover to increase it to regular cover. The only time I'm seeing that called out using the take cover action is if you already have cover.
@@mattsullivan2458 The Take Cover aktion: "Requirements: You are benefiting from cover, [...]" "If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus [...] *Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover* (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). "
@@Tilim1st "Requirements You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone" So the question really is "is having lesser cover while mounted enough of a requisite to allow me to take cover?"
The very fact that the rules are written in a precise way that's meant to be properly understand, as if it was legalese....it makes this edition far far better then 5th edition.
Another question that comes to my mind is the case of precision damage. If shield block does prevent the base physical damage, is precision prevented ? Also that springs another one: can reactions like that be used when flat footed ?
The reaction one is a good question. But I would just add the precision damage to the total damage. It's not coming from a different source, it's part of the same attack. Not much different than a sword that does additional fire damage.
I agree with Adam -- Precision damage increases the base damage... I don't think they'd be separate pools. And I don't see anything that says the Flat-footed condition prevents the use of Reactions.
The stipulation of flat footed preventing reactions does not exist in PF2E. This is a stipulation of flat footed in Starfinder, and flat footed in PF1E prevents you generally, amongst its other penalties, from using attacks of opportunity.
Question, if you don't mind: Since the Core Rulebook states that cover applies "only if your path to the target is partially blocked. If a creature is entirely behind a wall or the like, you don’t have line of effect (page 457) and typically can’t target it at all.", how does a Tower Shield work? Does the +4 AC bonus applies all the time against enemies all around the character or does the player declares a direction he wants to point the shield towards? Same when it comes to being targeted by spells or effects. I mean, is it assumed that the character rotates the shield to face incoming attacks and negate effects against him/her? Or is there a chance for monsters and enemies to maneuver in a way to negate the cover bonus (eventually leaving the Raise Shield bonus only, maybe)? Thank you so much for your videos! Your videos made learning the mechanics so much easier!
Since there are no facing rules in Pathfinder (well, except for vehicles), I believe the bonus is applied to all enemies with the expectation that the character with the shield is turning to defend themselves.
Due spellcasters with the Shield spell get to use this as well? If I remember right, the hardness rating from that shield spell is pretty high, which would help the squishies in taking less damage from an attack. I know that the shield is automatically raised with the spell.
While I do agree that its better to just tell the player I don't technically agree with the reasoning of resistance (or DR as you call it in your video). The GM can just do the calculations. They can either ask for the resistance value of the player and subtract it before giving it to the player, or the player can state their damage and the GM can ask for the types of damage and reduce those values.
"you would take damage" thats pretty clear in game terms.. Because of DR, Resitence and all of that. You have no way of knowing you would take damage trhough your defenses. Shield Block is the last ever I think
Unfortunately no. A single trigger cannot trigger multiple reactions from a single source. Note: this is a good thing or an enemy fighter could use multiple Attacks of Opportunity for a single trigger.
The triggers are not the same, IMO: Trigger An enemy hits you with a melee Strike. Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack. These happen at different stages, as evidenced by the fact that you do other steps in between. Roll to hit -> hit -> Reactive Shield -> still hits -> roll damage -> Shield Block -> take reduced damage. If the triggers were equivalent, you wouldn't be rolling damage in between.
Has the "would take damage" ever been clarified by Paizo? I know you do the "Ask a developer" series but can't find anything for this. This is still coming up in the game I play in.
[About Shield Block] Why wouldn't the GM secretly roll the damage, check if it exceeds the PC's DR, and share only that information with the player? As far as I'm aware, getting a high DR is pretty difficult and usually happens at fairly high levels, at which even the lowest damage rolls (in a non-trivial combat encounter) will likely exceed it. So, if such a low damage roll occurs, I'd be happy to save the PC's reaction, but if it would deal at least some damage, I would ask them to make a decision.
If the player has DR, the player can tell the GM what their DR is and then the GM can tell them if their character is going to take damage. The player doesn't need to know the damage amount in this interaction if the GM knows the players DR. This can be similar to the player telling the GM their modifiers for secret checks before the GM rolls the secret check for them.
oh so if the shield stops 5 with hardness and you get 5 past that, you and the shield both take the 5 points of damage, that seems like a double whammy to not use the shield block at all. (steel shield) it the is/or should be reduced with specific armor resistances after that The way I interpreted this shield block was that you can use the reaction to reduce damage, but it goes to the shield first after the hardness 5 absorbs some, then the shield's hit points 5. after That it goes threw that, it then goes to you 0. I wasn't even thinking about if tell the PC about being hit, or not, more about them suspecting it being a critical against them. Which left with me a thought about this. What happens on a critical with a shield block? this seem like an over sight. Should it not the work the way I see it and then if the pc uses the shield block reaction it should move to armor on a critical. As in the shield either broke in this hit or deflected the blow so much so that the armor is now the item taken damage, Or at least an athletics/reflex check/save to make the armor take the damage after that and not the PC.
Do you allow your players to declare during Exploration that they've got their shield raised and ready and their weapon out and ready as well to avoid having to use an action to do it when combat actually begins (i.e....a PC smells/hears what COULD be an imminent threat)? Thnx
This is already an exploration activity. 2e.aonprd.com/Activities.aspx?ID=2 Having your weapon also in hand doesn't require any additional effort like a shield does.
@@wam429 Cool! Thnx a lot!! I'd never seen that for some reason.... but in my defense, I'm still only in my first 6 months of running, and don't typically read every word of the core books. Maybe I should start. 😅
Yeah, my tables usually allow you to have a weapon drawn during exploration. But that means if you're also using the defend activity (to start battle with your shield up) you won't be the one opening doors or activating anything.
I'm still confused about shield block. Is the remaining damage divided up? Is there a priority for the damage? If the damage is 10 and the shield's hardness blocks 5, how does the shield and the player both take 5?
So, Shield Block general feat gives a character damage reduction, based on the shield material?? How about Reactive Shield fighter feat?? It gives a character bonus on AC, so the use of the shield decrease the chance of a character being hit?
Right -- but the real value of Reactive Shield is you don't have to spend one of your three actions in the turn to raise it. Instead, you can use your Reaction to raise it, if needed. But wouldn't also be able to use Shield Block with it as you already spent your one Reaction to raise it.
@@davidcdun8896 I'd say it's pretty situational... if you can spend one of your three actions that round to raise it, then do so. If you can't (maybe because you needed to spend all three of them to move someplace), then use Reactive Shield.
Can you use a tower shield to raise shield then take cover then hide (3 action) from the direction it was raised thus gaining hidden condition thus forcing enemies to roll flat dc 11 on top of increased AC. I'm thinking hold the line scenario in a narrow corridor
I don't see any reason that the GM should ever tell the players the total amount of damage a creature is dealing. That sort of information is meta-gaming. Even most video games don't tell you that information. Furthermore, it breaks verisimilitude. In the middle of a fight you don't know how much damage you're going to take when you get hit. You just surmise that getting hit by the big dude with the rippling muscles will hurt a lot if he hits you. As previously stated, you can resolve DR without having the GM tell the player the total damage from a hit. Likewise, the GM can ask the player their remaining HP (but really should be tracking it themselves) and then lets them know if they are about to be reduced to 0 HP. No need to reveal total damage here either. Lastly, not knowing total damage helps make combat more dramatic, instead of turning it into a number crunching session.
Just to see if I understand correctly. Are you saying that players shouldnt know how much damage they take at all? I feel like I am misunderstanding you, but I am not sure
@@natanoj16 Indeed, I only meant that players should not know the exact amount they are taking before damage reduction nor the maximum the attacker is capable of dealing. The GM should do the damage reduction themselves and only tell the players the amount they are taking. But since you mentioned it... If you wanted to play a game where players only know their total HP and only get vague statements when they take damage, that would be a delightfully nerve wracking experience! I might try that out just for fun! >:D
Not telling players the amount damage is certainly more realistic, but in my experience in a strategy game giving players the information they need to make good tactical decisions is more enjoyable for them and leads to a better experience. I personally have no problem telling that sort of thing to my players so they can get the most out of their abilities. As the GM I lose nothing, since the PCs are supposed to win anyway, and the player gets to feel awesome instead of wasting their reaction and feeling bad about it.
Also it just slows combat down a lot if you have to pause to let them decide if they're going to block before telling them their damage and it forces the GM to keep in mind which players have or haven't raised their shields and have the feat so they know to pause and give the player the option. So much quicker and easier to just say "the goblin hits you for 12 damage" and then let them decide if they are willing to block that.
As others have stated I probably am going to be more likely as a DM to either have a note of the characters' resistance or ask them when they have declared the Raise Shield Action, so that I can determine if they will take damage when a damage roll is made, so that there's some mystery. Sometimes I might say "A big hit" or "a small hit" or some other description - "that looks like its going to be painful" etc to inform battle awareness, without an actual total until the block is either declared or not. I think your way is fine, and great that it works at your table. This is the way Id be likely to resove it.
In online games though, a lot of the time the macros have damage at the same time as the attack roll to save time, and in this case, the player would know anyway. That's a slightly different dynamic and I don't think I'd go to the effort of changing the macros for online play and let it be.
Hey Dave. Good video as always. Just a reminder that you need to state your jargon before using the shortened version. You never mention that "DR" is Damage Resistance in this video. I know this might seem obvious to some, but it's not necessarily. The general guideline is the first time you say the term, use the full term *and* the shortened version (in this case "What if I have Damage Resistance or DR?" - then every other time use just DR).
If you don't know how much damage you take will be a constant gamble and in general pf2e is very explicit when you are gamble so... I read it in the same way
Thank you, as always!
My pleasure! Thanks for commenting!
I would disagree with the first part if there weren't already so many things for me to be tracking during combat. Also, I'm not going to ask if my PCs want to use their reaction or what their resistances are before I state how much and the type of damage they are taking. So if the player asks if they can use their shield block reaction after I say the damage, I'm not going to worry about it.
If I raise a tower shield and then use take cover, do I gain a +4 bonus to reflex saves against area effects or a +2 bonus? Same question for the stealth benefits.
it should be +4, as it's like taking greater cover
its kinda needed, as with the way damage work with shields they would be way less useful if you didnt know when to use it and not, its best used to mitigate lower dmg regularly then using it on big attacks, other wise your only going to be preventing dmg once or twice where as you use it on lower number closer to its hardness, you will block more dmg through out the fight
That's pretty much my reasoning too for knowing the value of the damage first. If I have damage reduction and it would reduce my damage to zero, then there is no trigger for shield block.
I read "2 Shield Question" and thought it was going to be about wielding 2 shields, which as far as I know doesn't have much of a benefit. Yo can attack with a shield boss or shield spikes, and if one breaks you have a spare, but that's about it, right?
Also, another question that came at my table is if you can enchant a shield with runes. You can put weapon runes on them if you have a boss/spikes, but not armour runes, right? Then there's the Spellguard Shield and others that's more what you'll expect from an enchanted shield.
Right -- "Shields" are not "Armor" in 2nd edition, so you cannot etch armor runes on a shield. But there are magic shields you can find, buy or craft... you just don't get the flexibility of magic runes with them.
Very clearly explained.
I skimmed the title quickly and started watching… imagine my disappointment when It was finished and you hadn’t covered dual welding shields. Lol
HA! Sorry about that! :)
When you use the take cover action with a tower shield raised, do you get +2 circumstance bonus to reflex saves against AOEs?
Great video!
Thanks! :)
If an ally is adjacent to you while you are raising your tower shield, can they take cover behind it? Do they have standard cover while it is raised? Only lesser cover? How does this interact with the level 2 Devoted Guardian feat for Fighters and Champions?
I have several questions:
1) How DM is expected to deal with persisted damage done to shield with attacks that got blocked (flasks in Dragon's Crest shield adjustment or generic spell/creature attacks with modifiers)?
Are those attacks subjected to be countered by hardness or not?
2) Is DM supposed to dissect any damage type of multy sourced attack as soon as attack got blocked with a shield to determine which type of those the shield is immune to?
What happens next? Do all remaining atacks penetrate hardness separately or not?
3) How many actions does it take to drop a shield (Release/Interact+Release)? I am aware about strapped/wielded dilemma as well as rules not mentioning what "detach shield or strapped item - 1 interaction" actially means - to detach stoved shield or detach wielded shield. I'd like to know if there are any definitive solutions since new edition is coming out...
How does it correspond with shove ability from shield augmentation that allows the user of any affected shield to willingly drop it for a free action or turn it into meteor shield?
4) What was Gauntlet buckler made for? It is more expensive buckler that can't be upgraded with any adjustments and it takes the same amount of 2 interactions to be raised as a shield that isn't wielded at all, AFAICS. And it might be even worse because it is unclear if "Nimble Shield Hand" feat overrides Bulk L limitation for the gauntlet.
Is my assumption correct, that you can't benefit from (lesser) cover, when you raise a shield (excluding the tower shield)?
Both are circumstance mods and as far as I know, they don't stack, right?
So if you are on a horse, a shield becomes less valuable, right?
Well, that's tricky because every +1 to AC is highly valuable, so if you have a shield that gives the +2 to AC when raised and you're still benefitting from the lesser cover while mounted, raising your shield will still give you a net +1 to AC, but it also means you can occasionally make the decision to use your 3rd action for something else if you don't think you need to raise your shield in a certain round and still be well enough off from the lesser cover
@@mattsullivan2458 But you could also use take "take cover" action instead of "raise shield". That would give you the same benefit *and* it would also work against reflex saving throws *and* you would have the second hand free to use a 2-handed weapon for example.
The only downside is, that you can't use shield block that way.
@@Tilim1st unless I'm missing a line somewhere, you can't normally use lesser cover to take cover to increase it to regular cover. The only time I'm seeing that called out using the take cover action is if you already have cover.
@@mattsullivan2458 The Take Cover aktion:
"Requirements: You are benefiting from cover, [...]"
"If you would
have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus [...]
*Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover* (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). "
@@Tilim1st "Requirements You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone"
So the question really is "is having lesser cover while mounted enough of a requisite to allow me to take cover?"
The very fact that the rules are written in a precise way that's meant to be properly understand, as if it was legalese....it makes this edition far far better then 5th edition.
Another question that comes to my mind is the case of precision damage. If shield block does prevent the base physical damage, is precision prevented ? Also that springs another one: can reactions like that be used when flat footed ?
The reaction one is a good question. But I would just add the precision damage to the total damage. It's not coming from a different source, it's part of the same attack. Not much different than a sword that does additional fire damage.
I agree with Adam -- Precision damage increases the base damage... I don't think they'd be separate pools. And I don't see anything that says the Flat-footed condition prevents the use of Reactions.
The stipulation of flat footed preventing reactions does not exist in PF2E. This is a stipulation of flat footed in Starfinder, and flat footed in PF1E prevents you generally, amongst its other penalties, from using attacks of opportunity.
Hmm, can you shield bash with tower shield? Where to look it up?
Plus many people roll damage simultaneously with their attack to save time.
Question, if you don't mind: Since the Core Rulebook states that cover applies "only if your path to the target is partially blocked. If a creature is entirely behind a wall or the like, you don’t have line of effect (page 457) and typically can’t target it at all.", how does a Tower Shield work? Does the +4 AC bonus applies all the time against enemies all around the character or does the player declares a direction he wants to point the shield towards? Same when it comes to being targeted by spells or effects.
I mean, is it assumed that the character rotates the shield to face incoming attacks and negate effects against him/her? Or is there a chance for monsters and enemies to maneuver in a way to negate the cover bonus (eventually leaving the Raise Shield bonus only, maybe)?
Thank you so much for your videos! Your videos made learning the mechanics so much easier!
Since there are no facing rules in Pathfinder (well, except for vehicles), I believe the bonus is applied to all enemies with the expectation that the character with the shield is turning to defend themselves.
Due spellcasters with the Shield spell get to use this as well? If I remember right, the hardness rating from that shield spell is pretty high, which would help the squishies in taking less damage from an attack. I know that the shield is automatically raised with the spell.
The Shield spell explicitly says you can Shield Block with it. This works even if you don't have the feat.
While I do agree that its better to just tell the player I don't technically agree with the reasoning of resistance (or DR as you call it in your video). The GM can just do the calculations. They can either ask for the resistance value of the player and subtract it before giving it to the player, or the player can state their damage and the GM can ask for the types of damage and reduce those values.
"you would take damage" thats pretty clear in game terms.. Because of DR, Resitence and all of that. You have no way of knowing you would take damage trhough your defenses. Shield Block is the last ever I think
The GM could simply say, "You're going to take damage from this attack."
Keep it up
Thanks! I appreciate it!
I have Bastion build of Reactive Shield + Quick Shield Block. Can I use both reactions to mitigate the same single attack?
Unfortunately no. A single trigger cannot trigger multiple reactions from a single source. Note: this is a good thing or an enemy fighter could use multiple Attacks of Opportunity for a single trigger.
The triggers are not the same, IMO:
Trigger An enemy hits you with a melee Strike.
Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack.
These happen at different stages, as evidenced by the fact that you do other steps in between.
Roll to hit -> hit -> Reactive Shield -> still hits -> roll damage -> Shield Block -> take reduced damage. If the triggers were equivalent, you wouldn't be rolling damage in between.
Has the "would take damage" ever been clarified by Paizo? I know you do the "Ask a developer" series but can't find anything for this. This is still coming up in the game I play in.
Can allies also use your tower shield as cover?
[About Shield Block] Why wouldn't the GM secretly roll the damage, check if it exceeds the PC's DR, and share only that information with the player?
As far as I'm aware, getting a high DR is pretty difficult and usually happens at fairly high levels, at which even the lowest damage rolls (in a non-trivial combat encounter) will likely exceed it. So, if such a low damage roll occurs, I'd be happy to save the PC's reaction, but if it would deal at least some damage, I would ask them to make a decision.
If the player has DR, the player can tell the GM what their DR is and then the GM can tell them if their character is going to take damage. The player doesn't need to know the damage amount in this interaction if the GM knows the players DR.
This can be similar to the player telling the GM their modifiers for secret checks before the GM rolls the secret check for them.
oh so if the shield stops 5 with hardness and you get 5 past that, you and the shield both take the 5 points of damage, that seems like a double whammy to not use the shield block at all.
(steel shield) it the is/or should be reduced with specific armor resistances after that
The way I interpreted this shield block was that you can use the reaction to reduce damage, but it goes to the shield first after the hardness 5 absorbs some, then the shield's hit points 5. after That it goes threw that, it then goes to you 0.
I wasn't even thinking about if tell the PC about being hit, or not, more about them suspecting it being a critical against them. Which left with me a thought about this. What happens on a critical with a shield block? this seem like an over sight. Should it not the work the way I see it and then if the pc uses the shield block reaction it should move to armor on a critical. As in the shield either broke in this hit or deflected the blow so much so that the armor is now the item taken damage, Or at least an athletics/reflex check/save to make the armor take the damage after that and not the PC.
commenting to feed the algorithm
Thanks! I appreciate it!
Do you allow your players to declare during Exploration that they've got their shield raised and ready and their weapon out and ready as well to avoid having to use an action to do it when combat actually begins (i.e....a PC smells/hears what COULD be an imminent threat)? Thnx
This is already an exploration activity. 2e.aonprd.com/Activities.aspx?ID=2
Having your weapon also in hand doesn't require any additional effort like a shield does.
@@wam429 Cool! Thnx a lot!! I'd never seen that for some reason.... but in my defense, I'm still only in my first 6 months of running, and don't typically read every word of the core books. Maybe I should start. 😅
Yeah, my tables usually allow you to have a weapon drawn during exploration. But that means if you're also using the defend activity (to start battle with your shield up) you won't be the one opening doors or activating anything.
@@Unikatze I like that approach....I'll steal that if that's ok. 👍
I'm still confused about shield block. Is the remaining damage divided up? Is there a priority for the damage? If the damage is 10 and the shield's hardness blocks 5, how does the shield and the player both take 5?
You and your shield each take 5, yes. Remember that A) HP is an abstraction and B) Item HP isn't always quite the same as a living creature's HP.
It always bothered me that Paizo doesn’t spell things out more clearly… They leave it up to people to interpret and I think that’s just wrong
song?
Does tower shield impose -5foot speed penalty even if it is stowed?
I don't believe so.
Hmmm, I won't be telling PC's damage totals before those decisions - just doesn't make sense. Take the chance and let the dice decide.
Agree - that seems silly
So, Shield Block general feat gives a character damage reduction, based on the shield material??
How about Reactive Shield fighter feat?? It gives a character bonus on AC, so the use of the shield decrease the chance of a character being hit?
Right -- but the real value of Reactive Shield is you don't have to spend one of your three actions in the turn to raise it. Instead, you can use your Reaction to raise it, if needed. But wouldn't also be able to use Shield Block with it as you already spent your one Reaction to raise it.
@@HowItsPlayed Ok, so both are reaction actions, and I can only use one of them, each round?
Then, which one is prefered?
@@davidcdun8896 I'd say it's pretty situational... if you can spend one of your three actions that round to raise it, then do so. If you can't (maybe because you needed to spend all three of them to move someplace), then use Reactive Shield.
What kind of Mobile Suit is that? Is it a Zaku?
Close -- it's a Neo Zeong! th-cam.com/video/SVm1IWMAdYk/w-d-xo.html
Can you use a tower shield to raise shield then take cover then hide (3 action) from the direction it was raised thus gaining hidden condition thus forcing enemies to roll flat dc 11 on top of increased AC.
I'm thinking hold the line scenario in a narrow corridor
I'M First? Nice :D
Thanks for those explanations!
I don't see any reason that the GM should ever tell the players the total amount of damage a creature is dealing.
That sort of information is meta-gaming. Even most video games don't tell you that information.
Furthermore, it breaks verisimilitude. In the middle of a fight you don't know how much damage you're going to take when you get hit. You just surmise that getting hit by the big dude with the rippling muscles will hurt a lot if he hits you.
As previously stated, you can resolve DR without having the GM tell the player the total damage from a hit.
Likewise, the GM can ask the player their remaining HP (but really should be tracking it themselves) and then lets them know if they are about to be reduced to 0 HP. No need to reveal total damage here either.
Lastly, not knowing total damage helps make combat more dramatic, instead of turning it into a number crunching session.
Just to see if I understand correctly.
Are you saying that players shouldnt know how much damage they take at all?
I feel like I am misunderstanding you, but I am not sure
@@natanoj16 Indeed, I only meant that players should not know the exact amount they are taking before damage reduction nor the maximum the attacker is capable of dealing. The GM should do the damage reduction themselves and only tell the players the amount they are taking.
But since you mentioned it...
If you wanted to play a game where players only know their total HP and only get vague statements when they take damage, that would be a delightfully nerve wracking experience!
I might try that out just for fun! >:D
Think you reaching abit for the know the dmg
On the Paizo forums the game designers say that you will know the damage before deciding to use the reaction to shield block
@@prof.skypikachu there we go, forms update