Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder Second Edition: I hear it's bad - Why Bad, How Bad?

[CapnZapp]

IIRC, you could not get a magic shield.

Ah!

Why didn't you say so! We certainly don't need fancy math to tell a magic weapon is better than a non-magical shield! [emoji846][emoji854][emoji39]

Obviously we're not seeing the whole picture. I can't imagine the PF2 devs missing something as obvious as this! [emoji2]

That is, unless you can't "upgrade" both your arms, you will obviously switch to a different weapons combo that allows it.

In any game where weapons can be significantly upgraded, but shields can't, obviously noone will use shields (except at the lowest levels)

 

[zztong]

Ah! Why didn't you say so!

Sorry? Err, um, my mistake.

I suspect the dilemma the designers faced was balancing the magic weapon bonuses against the magic armor bonuses, and then not having some offensive to-hit bonus to put against a magic shield AC bonus.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry? Err, um, my mistake.

I suspect the dilemma the designers faced was balancing the magic weapon bonuses against the magic armor bonuses, and then not having some offensive to-hit bonus to put against a magic shield AC bonus.

As primarily defensive implements, the obvious function of a magic shield would be to protect you from damage. If bonuses to AC isn't enough (or can't be raised enough for other reasons), the natural alternative would be to make it soak damage.

If a +3 longsword adds 9 points of damage less than a greatswordto outgoing damage, maybe a +3 shield could subtract 3 from each incoming damage and the trade-off would be acceptable?

 

[zztong]

As primarily defensive implements, the obvious function of a magic shield would be to protect you from damage. If bonuses to AC isn't enough (or can't be raised enough for other reasons), the natural alternative would be to make it soak damage.

If a +3 longsword adds 9 points of damage less than a greatswordto outgoing damage, maybe a +3 shield could subtract 3 from each incoming damage and the trade-off would be acceptable?

I'd argue armor would be more apropos for absorbing damage and a shield for AC, but that's neither here nor there.

That is certainly an alternative, though the longsword damage in the same amount as the greatsword, so the greatsword becomes even more likely to be the weapon of choice because you mitigate a smaller percentage of its maximum. Or, in reverse, with 5 DR, you shutdown 5/8's of a longsword versus 5/12's of a greatsword.

Another approach would have been to allow shields to have a bonus, but (if the shield were raised) only give the player the larger magic bonus to AC of either the shield or armor, otherwise the armor's bonus. The +2 shield bonus would always apply if raised.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

In PF1, a +5 two-handed weapon would do something like 1d12+5.
In PF2, a +5 two-handed weapon would do something like 5d12.

A PF2, the differences in damage based on the die-size of the weapon separate significantly as the magical bonus advances. This lets magic weapons keep up with spell damage, but it also exaggerates the differences in the weapons themselves.

So, would you take a shield and a +5 d8 one-handed weapon or a +5 d12 weapon? You average 2 points more damage per die, so +10 average damage and a much higher potential peak damage. The trade off was that you are 10% more likely to get hit, and perhaps suffer a critical hit. We were seeing folks ditch the shield, specially if they weren't trying to frequently tank.

IIRC, you could not get a magic shield. You needed a class, I think Paladin, to take feats to improve their AC bonus from a shield. That's from memory so I might have be off in some way.

According to people with the final book in their hands the max weapons go to is +3( except for some artifact level weapons)

 

[zztong]

According to people with the final book in their hands the max weapons go to is +3( except for some artifact level weapons)

And that may have been true of the Playtest too. I don't recall how high they went. The important part is that magic weapon damage improves by the item's dice, not its bonus.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

And that may have been true of the Playtest too. I don't recall how high they went. The important part is that magic weapon damage improves by the item's dice, not its bonus.

That is definitely th important part, but it is important to recognize how hard things scale.

 

[zztong]

That is definitely th important part, but it is important to recognize how hard things scale.

Certainly. From a to-hit perspective, the magic weapon bonus is irrelevant assuming the magic armor bonus is realized at the same time. In the Playtest, the magic armor bonus was usually available 1 level earlier than the magic weapon bonus, but that's from memory.

In terms of damage, even a comparison of 2d8 damage (one-hand weapon) vs 2d12 (two-hand weapon) was enough to shift player preference at our table. That is, 24 peak damage vs 16 peak damage, or 13 average damage vs 9 average damage.

Oh, and I had a +5 at 5d12, but that would really have been 6d12. A +3 d12 weapon would do 4d12. Sorry for the accidental misinformation.

 

[chunkosauruswrex]

Certainly. From a to-hit perspective, the magic weapon bonus is irrelevant assuming the magic armor bonus is realized at the same time. In the Playtest, the magic armor bonus was usually available 1 level earlier than the magic weapon bonus, but that's from memory.

In terms of damage, even a comparison of 2d8 damage (one-hand weapon) vs 2d12 (two-hand weapon) was enough to shift player preference at our table. That is, 24 peak damage vs 16 peak damage, or 13 average damage vs 9 average damage.

Oh, and I had a +5 at 5d12, but that would really have been 6d12. A +3 d12 weapon would do 4d12. Sorry for the accidental misinformation.

The thing that is supposed to balance that out one handed vs two handed is that AC matters a lot more with critical hits being +10 AC. Meaning when monster attack bonuses get high if you are focused solely on damage at the expense of defense you become a glass cannon who won't survive many rounds of combat

 

[zztong]

The thing that is supposed to balance that out one handed vs two handed is that AC matters a lot more with critical hits being +10 AC. Meaning when monster attack bonuses get high if you are focused solely on damage at the expense of defense you become a glass cannon who won't survive many rounds of combat

Agreed. That does seem to be the design intent. Players at our table routinely came to the conclusion outbound damage was worth more. I don't know that any of them performed any deep analysis. In one scenario there was a Paladin who made great use of their shield.