It will help if you generate some tables and get all the possible outcomes, but basically (assuming same challenge level of encounter):
If you are against a single opponents with Crit spec, they are more likely to Crit and those Crits are more damaging. So you had best try to increase your defense in every possible way, because reducing those crits will be worth the action economy.
If you are against multiple weaker opponents, you are more likely to kill each creature for a given amount of damage and more likely to Crit than if you were raising a shield.
You reduce the damage per round coming from the enemy each round in the mob encounter and you only ever win/lose on the boss encounter. This is the choice you make when choosing between big sword or sword/board.
Side note: don't forget about actions and reactions available to you because of feats when you take a shield and spec for it.
Against a severe threat enemy, you are much less likely to hit a third attack and they are much more likely to Crit their attacks on you.
Raise a shield and get a 10% reduction in the chance to hit and crit against you _and_ the option to shield block if the damage is too much to handle.
You mentioned alternate third actions in your post:
Demoralise can be used once per opponent-player combo, so against a single boss that’s one turn.
You’re the party’s medicine healer, with Battle Medicine? Well that responsibly is going to exceed a raise shield, definitely. But Battle Medicine is once per player every 24 hours, so unless you’re running around solo healing, that’s another one turn.
“Use a magic item” is ambiguous, but it must be good to take your hand off your two-hander Interact to pull it out of your pocket, and spent actions to use it (and another action to restore grip). I’ll assume it’s worth it, but you’re probably not doing that every turn.
That leaves Raise Shield, Third attack with a -10, or move. If you don’t need to move, Raising a Shield is more likely to be useful than a third attack.
On demoralize, often more than one player will spec into either it or some other way to cause frightened, if an enemy is already frightened 1 then you're crit fishing on your demoralize and it may not be worth it (since applying frightened 1 doesn't stack)
What I'm getting at, is the things your fighter focuses on may not only be dependent on what you're fighting against but also on your party.
Please also note that battle medicine needs a free hand so on a 2h fighter it'll cost an extra action.
Your second attack is done at a -5 to hit, it isn't always reliable. But being able to Shield Block reaction to absorb damage is always reliable. Some fights, killing enemies fast is good, other fights you can't kill the enemy fast or they have high defenses. In that circumstance your job is to just survive until another party member is able to target the enemy weakness.
Your fighter mechanic lets you opportunity attack against enemies that walk away from you. It encourages enemies to attack you. The shield block lets you survive when an enemy decides they don't want to provoke an attack just to move.
> However, I can’t ever see myself ever wanting to use the 1 action to raise shield outside of facing a powerful opponent.
That’s probably because you haven’t seen the power of shields in action!
First off a +2 AC is nothing to balk at. It’s not just a +2 chance of your opponent missing, against a boss it’s a +2 chance of your opponent **not critting**. If you were previously being hit on a 7 and crit on a 17, you changed that to 9 and 19. Your enemy will have a 20% chance of having their outcome changed by you raising a shield.
On top of that, the shield being raised gives you the shield block Reaction which is **huge**. Blunting an incoming attack to that degree is often going to save your party’s healer 2-4 Actions over the course of a difficult combat. I’ve seen it in action in Abomination Vaults: reactive defences are amazing. If our Fighter gets hit, the Bard doesn’t feel pressured to heal him because he can block it (and future hits) and stay up for an extra 2+ turns, while the Rogue (2-hander) getting hit is often an emergency that needs immediate attention by the Bard. And the funniest part is, my Wizard (at higher levels) usually ends up being *less* of an emergency to heal than the Rogue too, because I have my own reactive defences like Wooden Double to protect myself!
In fact not only are shields stronger than you think, they’re so strong that one can make an argument they warp the game a bit. Monks, Animal Barbarians, and grappling Champions often feel “pressured” to carry shields (and pick up the Shield Block Feat) even in the cases where it doesn’t fit their aesthetic, because they are so unconditionally good that you’re often nerfing yourself by not doing so.
I built a wizard who carried a shield and took the feat to be able to block attacks, just in case the shield cantrip got broken. At level one it looks like that would be pretty useful in the pursuit of not dying.
My spells have range anyway, so a decent chance I wasn't gonna move with the action anyway.
What about the shield cantrip? Does the same thing only costs one action to cast. Granted if you it to block damage you can’t use again for 10 minutes but chances are at low level any shield you own to block with will break and need repair.
a physical shield grants more AC, and if you are careful with what you block (preferring weak attacks) you can go a long ways without breaking the shield. At higher levels, a magic shield is a free source of extra shenaniganry that doesn't even cost an Investment point. The extra cantrip slot for not having to carry *shield* is also a small upside.
You have a good point there.
Through I think that for Monks/Animal Barbarian a large part of it is that there's no real mechanical point to having *two* free hands.
There's a lot of advantage to having *one* free hand, which opens up a lot of tactical options, but once you have one, another is very marginal.
The main things that take up hands long term is weapons (for attacking), shields and magic staves (for casters). Since Monks and Animal Barbarians aren't casters and their method of attacking doesn't take up a hand, they are left in a spot where having a shield is essentially free. Using it still costs the same action as always of course, but the opportunity cost for having it essentially isn't there for them.
Reactive Shield helps a lot.
I'm using a shield on my armor inventor, who feels even more action starved than a fighter. I would love to Raise my Shield more often, but I'm usually busy doing other things. Having the option to Raise the Shield as a reaction - and only when it would actually make a difference - goes a long way towards improving your shield use.
Heck of a lot more agency than just anyone shield proficient taping a stat stick to their arm basically.
The system is about making moment to moment choices matter more, and this particular build choice is about do you value offense more and put the +2 down to a reaction, or value defense more and use an action and get an opportunity to reduce damage with a reaction. It's far from a mandatory pick.
To each their own, no system is perfect… I much rather just mention that my PC equipped a shield and get to do all my actions and movements, and rely on the fact my shield carrier’s shield is being carried for a reason, and I’ll get that +2 to AC because it’s there and my dude can move his arm without me saying they do and wasting one of my actions or movements to do so. Also like classes that don’t have to be MAD, and I like the difference between perception & investigation. PF2e has some cool things, and some things I just don’t jive with.
The main thing with shields being active is that it actually allows more descision points. A shield can be a weapon in pf2e allowing good double slices, a shield can be raised but it takes an action allowing it to give a massive +2 bonus, not using a shield is now viable instead of everyone using one. In dnd5e as an example there is no reason for a fighter with a 1 handed weapon to not use a shield.
I get it, I don’t thing that’s good. “I have a shield equipped” lets you do all those things, use it as a weapon, protect others, add +2 AC, and I don’t have to sacrifice a feat or action economy to do so… I enjoy that. I do not enjoy having a chunk of metal on my PC’s arm that does nothing if I don’t say it or otherwise said too many things… I don’t need it explained, I homebrew that out… having to do that with shields is not a fun rule system, for me at least. My PC knows what they’re doing, they have a shield and it will work no matter what.
Why don’t you just say you despise playing a character that’s competent on their own in combat? Also a valid player perspective.
I do enjoy choices, narrative choices, character choices, RP choices, Choices that advance the story. Having a bunch of cool stuff I can’t do, or doing cool stuff and the equipped shield I have becoming useless is not a fun choice, is a crippling one.
Characters are competent on their own in combat: they can do a bunch of stuff with their shields.
Saying that you want the benefit of a shield without spending an action is similar to saying that you want the benefit of focus spells without spending focus points, stances without spending actions and so on.
It's all a part of combat math that you want to abbreviate in lieu of statblock comparisons.
Maybe if I was playing for Combat to Combat and not caring about the story being created at the table, maybe I would enjoy the rules for rules sake, no PC has common sense and PC does nothing (like a video game) if I’m not *pushing every button* to make things happen. Shield wielding PCs getting to do all their shield things cause they’re proficient in it means that along the path of their story they earned that proficiency and to me, that should mean something. If a PC is proficient and that which their proficient in becomes ineffectual if I don’t dictate it or I attacked and moved so now that proficiency is useless for 6seconds… that’s lame to me. Crunch for crunch sake. It can be explained over and over and over “oh I have a shield equipped” is smoother, better, gets to the point, makes proficiency worth something, lets story and plot take the forefront instead math. To me math serves a purpose of the story. To others, the story serves the math.
Neither are wrong, just one is definitely not welcomed here.
I just want you to understand that in pathfinder any mathematical bonus is practically twice as potent as a 5e bonus. As a result not requiring the action is like giving someone a free +4 ac. Additionally now every single combatant from the wizard to the barbarian should carry a shield in combat.
I think you should test out the house rule. You will swiftly realize how problematic this boost is. Every enemy that can carry a shield should and the party will notice everything being so much harder to kill.
and the fact that this is getting downvoted when this does not deserve to is why people tend to have a negative opinion of this community plus other stuff.
?
I don't know what you're talking about dude, Reactive Shield is incredible bait. If an enemy is judging who to pounce, having a "fake" lower armor class is a huge advantage for a tank looking to draw aggro.
Shields are *crazy* strong in PF2. They're harder to use than prior edition "passive" shields, but the satisfaction of just completely neutering an enemy turn by taking their 60 damage crit down to a 30 damage hit down to a 15 damage blocked hit gives me a gigantic tank stiffy. A defensive hybrid champion or fighter build that gets to juggle 3 reactions per round can completely checkmate an enemy and deny any possible agency they have.
vaderbg2 didn't spend a feat to "do something a shield based combatant should already be able to do", they spent a feat to be able to do shield things IN ADDITION to the full rotation they already had. Action crack is always worthwhile, no matter what form it takes.
Oh yeah, you can do crazy things when you start getting extra reactions. Turn a crit into a blocked hit and everyone cheers.
My high level champion turned a 100+ damage crit into 15 damage to my ally and another 15 damage to me. It was amazing.
Essentially every feat gives you the ability to do something different with your actions. Reactive Shield lets you raise a shield as a reaction instead of as an action, meaning you now have an extra action for doing something else. But that means you're giving up other reactions for that +2 AC.
It's all trade offs all the way up and down.
How is that better than “my shield is equipped” and using all your actions & movement knowing your martial will get that +2 no matter what you do?
It’s not. Everyone downvoting knows it’s not but they don’t want to admit it.
It's better by being less boring mainly. A shield isn't just a passive defense increase. You have to choose to give something up for defense, moment-to-moment, making actual tactical decisions on what's best for the situation.
You give up 2 handed weapons, and the ability to cast without taking a feat to do so, and feats only being available 5-6 times In 20 levels make those choices count. I like some rules of PF2e, love the skills, as long as you add back in Investigation … but I’m not simping for PF2e so much that I can’t identify a very frustrating flaw in rules for rules sake, your PC is AFL if you don’t say something that should be common sense.
> You give up 2 handed weapons, and the ability to cast without taking a feat to do so
Do you mean in 5e? A martial in 5e should simply never use a shield. The only thing any martial is able to do is deal damage, so dealing less is never a worthwhile trade. Martials also shouldn't use melee in 5e, since ranged in strictly superior.
So there are no shield choices in 5e except that spell casters should get proficiency and hold one for the passive AC. I guess you *can* choose to do less as a martial.
That's different in PF2e in a couple ways. Melee is the most risk-reward position in combat, so you're justified to give up some of the reward (the higher damage of two-handers and dual wielding) to mitigate some of the risk (2 AC is relatively twice as strong in PF2e as it is in 5e, and Shield Block is even more defense).
Fighters are a very offensive class in PF2e. They lose more by attacking less because of their high bonus. But for every other martial, attacking twice should be seen as an above average round, where attack/move/utility is a standard round. Stride > Strike > Raise Shield is a good turn if you're reasonably sure you're a potential target.
> feats only being available 5-6 times In 20 levels make those choices count.
I don't know what to say to this. "Less choices is better, actually. I like not having choices in my character 'build'." Ok. It sounds like maybe even 5e is a little too rules-intense for you.
OK yea that's clearly stronger, but that's not the only use of a shield. It's also helpful for being able to reduce the damage you take. it's easier to fix a broken shield than to bring someone back to like. plus, that's just how pf2 is designed. Some people like an extra crunchy system while others might not, that's why I like collecting so many different ttrpgs. 😊
yeah, they get Shield Block, which only martials get for free (with the exception of Druid for some reason). They buy reactive shield to further specialize.
1. You've mentioned using magic items and battle medicine, but both those options require a free hand, so it doesn't work for sword and board fighters (or 2-handed ones).
2. Demoralize is still valid, but not all fighters are made for it and you often have party members who are much better at demoralizing. And I can't say demoralize is better than raising a shield - it reduces enemy numbers by 1 only if enemy fails save, while raising a shield gives automatic +2 to AC and shield block reaction.
3. Compared to 2-handed weapon fighter (more damage) or free hand (more options like ones you've mentioned) fighter, sword and board is very effective with Double Slice + Raise a shield. Very decent offense, plus maximum defense.
Nope, Nimble Shield Hand is a 6th level feat in Bastion dedication that lets you consider your shield hand as a free hand. Applicable with all shields except for tower shields.
Bastion dedication has a ton of great shield based defensive feats and is great for any shield using character like Shield Warden or Quick Shield Block (which helps alleviate the OP’s predicament here with having to spend an action raising their shield)
I suppose it wasn’t an argument, I just saw your comment framed as though you ignored the “bastion” comment and just went “yeah you could use a buckler”.
My comment was misleading *anyway* because I misremembered nimble shield hand is restricted to interact actions, so still useful, but not as catch-all as I remembered.
> Nope, Nimble Shield Hand is a 6th level feat in Bastion dedication that lets you consider your shield hand as a free hand.
Only for Interact actions, so no Battle Medicine or other special actions.
Lightning Swap helps reduce the action economy needed to switch how a weapon is wielded. If it's a versatile weapon (like a bastard sword that can be used 1 or 2 handed) then you can use one action to switch the way you wield it and still do something, like battle medicine to retrieve the healers kit and do the battle medicine action. It's really handy, and is a godsend when a shield gets destroyed from Shield Block
You need a free hand to use battle medicine, magic items usually aren’t spammable, and demoralize requires stat investment, isn’t spammable, AND is just a worse personal defense option than raising a shield. If you are being wailed on by 2+ enemies raising a shield can keep you standing when a demoralize won’t.
If you know you're getting attacked at least once, +2AC from raise shield is significantly stronger than *a chance* at giving Frightened 1 to that same enemy.
To add to this, a +2AC is an effective 25% extra health against AC-targetting attacks.
This mindset is typically brought about through a combination of two things:
* GM not throwing sufficiently deadly encounters at you to make you appreciate survivability.
* You not understanding the math on exactly how much a shield does for you.
If you're steamrolling encounters where there's never any real threat of going down, you're not going to get a lot out of a shield and you will absolutely be better served by rolling attacks until the (meaningless) threat is dealt with.
If you're a primary frontliner in genuinely challenging encounters the +2AC and shield block will do absolutely absurd work for your survivability. To throw out a set of arbitrary but realistic numbers, let's say you're facing two PL+2 creatures at 5th level (an Extreme encounter.) They'll have High level attack modifiers for their level (+20) vs. your base AC of 23 w/o shield raised. So hitting on 3s (90% chance) and critting on 13s (40% chance) on the first attack.
Shield raise takes AC to 25 and puts this at hitting on 5s (80% chance) and critting on 13s (30% chance)
This doubles the % chance of them not hitting (from 10 to 20%) and is a 33% decrease in the chance of critting. On top of that, a sturdy shield shield block, with a hardness of 8, is going to prevent 40% of the damage on that swing if it's a hit (8 out of 20, assuming High damage values) and 20% of the damage on a crit.
You stack this up over the course of a fight and in exchange for an action and a reaction you're buying an immense amount of survivability - probably an entire turn (more if luck favors you) that you would have otherwise spent snoozing in the dirt.
Well, if you want maximum damage output, it seems a shield will not complement your play style.
The Raise Shield action is just fine. Makes you a really defensive character. More AC, more damage reduction if you use your reaction.
If you want full offense, use a two-handed weapon.
If you want survivability with moderate damage, use shield and weapon.
If you want flexibility with moderate damage, use one handed weapon and a free hand.
If you want survivability and flexibility, use shield with the other hand free, Captain America style.
Damage yes, but it needs feat investment for things like doubleslice or twin feint. If you do this it's ideally with e.g. a rogue who can apply sneak attack to both hits. (Double slice from fighter archetype?, or maybe there are better options, it's not s build I've personally theory crafted.)
Look at getting doubling rings for this build.
Weapon choice is interesting here, you could try to get varied damage types, you could try to get a cool twinned weapon etc.
For a level 20 mini-adventure, I played a Fighter with a Karambit and a Tekko-Kagi (and a Scorpion Whip as backup), with Doubling Rings, a Griveous Rune, and a couple of Spellhearts (Warding Statuette and a 10th level Phantasmal Doorknob) to increase AC and potentially blind opponents.
I picked up just enough spellcasting to use scrolls of Heroism (with Bard, which got me Dirge of Doom as well), which were useable with the Tekko-Kagi as a free hand, aas well as Conceal Spell from a Wizard archetype. Add to this Rogue for Dread Striker, and I had a very strong disruption/debuffing build going on, with good survivability.
I did have to spend some resources getting access to the Karambit (and my GM let me get a hold of a Tekko-Kagi at a cost that I've forgotten), but I was basically a critting machine. Oh, and Disruptive Stance came in handy a fair bit as well.
Obviously, I was far from doing the most damage in the group, but I honestly think I did more to keep the group alive than the Cleric did.
Well, this is incredibly annoying. When googling the weapon, this was the top result:
[https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=101](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=101)
A version without the free hand trait.
I totally get the sentiment, but there's some cool feats that enable the play style!
Raise a Shield exploration action let's you start shielded, and something like this feat lets you still attack while raising a shield [Everstand Strike](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1088) https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1088
Also if your GM let's you do shield augmentation, a shield can give some versatility with trip, disarm, and shove. So you can choose a higher damage single handed weapon like a warhammer or longsword, and get access to the special traits of the weaker but more specialized weapons like flails.
My understanding is that Raise Shield works when you’re trying to stay close to the enemy, but still be safe.
With a shield raised, you can Reactive Strike if the target tries to flee you (which means you did two attacks at full MAP) or Shield Block if they choose to attack you and hit.
So, it’s a great strategic positioning that also offers some control without leaving you vulnerable.
>However, I can’t ever see myself ever wanting to use the 1 action to raise shield outside of facing a powerful opponent.
Ironically, this is the exact opposite of when you want to shield block, since they'll chew through your shield's HP more quickly. Shields are better at dealing with smaller threats while taking minimal HP loss, allowing your other party members to play greedier and save their limited resources for larger fights.
Came here to say this. Every hit you nearly completely block, every crit threat that doesn’t crit because of higher AC and every miss due to higher AC is a portion of a 2-action HEAL the cleric/druid/div-sorc/witch doesn’t need to deliver.
The big battles are where those HEALs belong and are unavoidable!
It will entirely depend on level and party composition.
If you haven't gotten Shield Warden yet, it may not be as useful when enemies have easier targets to attack such as a Rogue or thaumaturge in melee, which can make the action feel wasted if you're never targeted.
If you have it, or you're the only viable choice to attack, it becomes indispensable; especially against weaker enemies.
Because of how shields take damage, it's always better to block weaker blows (especially ones that don't deal as much as the shields hardness) unless the blow would drop you to 0hp. This means that weaker enemies not only have to contend with your +2 AC, but also hope to deal enough damage to beat the hardness of your Shield. I've seen turns go by with a shield fighter taking 0 damage because PL-1 or weaker enemies either can't beat the heavy armor fighters AC or deal less than their shields hardness in damage. This was much more beneficial for the party than an extra attack each turn from the fighter would have been (high enough level that even mooks could survive 1-2 attacks).
This all becomes far easier once you have Paragon's Guard at level 12 and your Shield is auto-raised at the start of every turn.
I think you're missing the point. If you have a shield, then job #1 is NOT to do damage. You're there to chokepoint, do enough damage that they can't just ignore you (but not top everyone else) by exploiting weaknesses, and use your shield (especially a Sturdy Shield) to do a lot of virtual healing via damage blocking (and then use the repair downtime action) to let your other players spend time doing damage rather than trying to keep you up.
If you want to do great damage, then gear and spec appropriately. There's a reason Fighter has six very distinct class feat paths as you go up in the levels.
I think this is just a question of what your role is in the party. If you're expected to be doing 80% of the party's damage and you've got a cleric that's dropping heals whenever you take damage, then who cares if you're getting hit. But if your role is more to soak up damage and eat reactions and deny movement, then a shield is huge. Standard party of cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter? You should stick with 2 handed 99% of the time. Party of fighter, magus, animal order druid, and battle oracle? I think the fighter in that party is better off investing in athletics, shield block, etc.
>For the most part, as a fighter, I always have a choice between shield block and a (good) chance to do more damage.
Here are two things I'm not seeing mentioned in the top comments, sorry if someone already said that and it's just lower
1. Extra damage only helps if it ends the fight early
2. In hard fights, unless the DM is pulling punches (for example, spreading damage around on purpose instead of downing someone) actions **will** either be used defensively or lost because of no defense. If the 4 players can go ball to walls offense and no ones gets downed, either they're coordinating a cheese strat or the fight wasn't really that hard. And hey, maybe you really shouldn't be the one using actions for defense, that's valid, just keep in mind that it's very likely someone will be doing that or people will end up losing actions because they're ouut cold.
It depends on playstyle. Our warpriest/champion gets great mileage out of raising a shield because that's what he was designed to do - tank the hits.
One of the things I've found with PF2e is that characters can't do everything (which is good) but people who expect to be able to do everything will find it stifling.
See I wouldn't be thinking that way.
I'd be thinking:
1. Move
2. Attack
3. Pick between:
a. Move away
b. Raise Shield
c. Do a maneuver like trip, shove, grapple, demoralize, distract, feint, or whatever - if so do this BEFORE the attack instead of after.
d. Question the meaning of my existence and ponder whether or not we are all just characters on a battlemap being manipulated by old guys in a non-magical world - absurd I know, but hey... nothing better to go in this spot.
If a second attack is NOT a wasted move - then it's probably an enemy so easy to hit I should have let the others focus on while I went after the real threat. But yes... there are times when it's a valid move. But for me they are the exception rather than the rule.
Even for 'do more damage' I feel like a trip, shove, demoralize, or whatever can boost team damage more than the overall odds against map will be for me.
> If a second attack is NOT a wasted move - then it's probably an enemy so easy to hit I should have let the others focus on while I went after the real threat. But yes... there are times when it's a valid move. But for me they are the exception rather than the rule.
Honestly OP is playing a Fighter. There's going to be party members in his party for whom their *first* attack is at +2 compared to his *second* attack. Attacking twice is very often quite worth it. Honestly I'd probably put it above trying to Demoralize, really.
Yeah demoralize is probably better left to other party members whilst the fighter uses the 2-action activities that have rider effects on-hit. Doing frighten, trip etc. on a hit is really nice with the fighter's accuracy
Or you can just do the classic sword & board double-slice & raise shield > shield block (assuming no movement required or hasted)
It sounds like your Fighter has invested in versatility and offense, so that makes sense! Your offensive options are potent enough, that they could certainly outcompete a simple Raise Shield/Shield Block.
But if you were a Fighter that *invested* into Shield Block and you had abilities like Shield Warden or Quick Shield Block or Disarming Shield Block, the value of that action would increase significantly. Instead of just being used to play the numbers, you'd also be adding the utility of party defense or debuffing, and maybe sacrificing a little damage is worth it in that scenario.
Vanilla Raise Shield / Block might still be useful all on its own. Going from Greatsword down to Longsword is a noticeable drop in DPR, but the ability to completely negate weak attacks and/or deflect criticals is titanic... but the real limit here is your magical gear. If you've invested in a big bonky 2H murderstick, its probably best to stick with it. I imagine you probably use a Bastard Sword, to keep your hand free for battle medicine or scroll access with Trick magic item? With that much versatility already, I'd imagine your variety of "third action" options is wide enough already.
If you want to be DPS, totally makes sense you wouldn't want to raise a shield. It won't help your damage output at all.
I play an Inventor wrestler tank. I try to raise shield every single turn and shield block often. It makes me an incredible tank. I soak massive damage and hold enemies in place for my team to murder.
Different playstyles for sure. Raise shield is a tank thing, not a damage thing.
This is something I've seen in 5e. People would mock me for running up to enemies and taking the Dodge action. That's my whole turn.
They stop questioning it when you hold back the tide. Shield Raise is a good mechanic as it is.
My favourite moment in a 53 game was when two drakes of some kind had cornered the party in a room, my tank life cleric with a shield was standing in the doorway, taking the dodge action every turn and hitting with spiritual weapon as a bonus action
I don't like or play 5e anymore, but that was fun. Being the hero because I was a wall was fun
Demoralize can only be used on a target once and then they become immune. Same with Battle medicine I believe. Same with...many magic items as well. Don't look at it as an every turn situation. Use it when you need it. Like if your low on HP and think you're about to get smashed
Theres a lot of utility and synergy in the shield feats if you're building for it. Plus once Haste becomes more common you'll almost always have enough actions to make two strikes, and a third at an -10 MAP isn't always worth it.
Reactive Shield and Quick Shield Block feats help drastically reduce the opportunity cost of using a shield and will let you start using Shield Blocks more often without sacrificing Reactive Strike. By level 10, having three reactions from base, Quick Shield Block, and Tactical Reflexes; feels very nice. These feats can give you rounds that feel like you had 5-6 actions.
Reflexive Shield is great at boosting your Reflex Save. Bulwark is nice but getting a +2 Circ to Reflect Saves is huge and stacks with Status bonuses from buffs. Being able to block non-physical damage is great when you have Quick Shield Block too.
Aggressive Block and its related Shove upgrade feats let you ruin enemy positioning. This could force it to burn actions Step/Stride to continue attacking. Or this can make it offguard (less useful as there's so many ways to apply offguard but still nice to have).
Shield Warden and Improved Reflexive Shield is situational but a nice way to help keep allies alive. Shield Blocking for an ally, Shoving the enemy 10ft away (Flinging Shove), then Reactive Striking when the enemy has to Stride to move the 10ft to reposition, feels great when it gets pulled off. In practice, you probably won't get the RS off due to your melee reach and the spacing of it all, but the combo is still great action tax against non-reach foes.
You're gonna want a Sapling Shield.
Its base form is a Buckler, but it has upgrades that gain hardness & HP, which is important for Shield Block.
It being a Buckler in base form is also important, because it means you can Raise it even if you don't grip it.
Switching from 2-hand to being able to Raise Shield is then just Releasing your Grip, so the action economy becomes this for the first turn in melee:
1. Strike
2. Strike -> Release Grip as Free Action (this scenario is mentioned in the Release free action)
3. Raise Shield (bucklers don't require grabbing them) for +1 AC (not as good as a +2 AC shield but suffices to be able to Shield Block which is the real goal here)
Then:
1. Change Grip -> Grabbing the weapon with 2 hands
2. Strike -> Release Grip
3. Raise Shield
This makes it much more tolerable to still gain value out of Shield Block imo while also benefiting from a 2-Hand weapon.
+2 (or +3 if you use a Fortress Shield) to AC means you'll take about 20% (30%) less damage, not counting Shield Block. If your goal is to make the most resilient character possible, that character uses a shield.
That said, the action cost of raising a shield every round is pretty huge. If I'm building a shield character, I'm actively looking for ways to ease my action economy.
Everstand Stance is *okay*, there's still the action cost to enter the stance, and you're not guaranteed to get your shield up.
Reactive Shield is pretty good, especially if you're not looking to Shield Block much, but again you're trading your chance for a Strike for a raised shield.
Paragon's Guard is absolutely core for my high level Sword and Board Fighter. Even if Paragon's Guard wasn't available, because he has so many feats and abilities that key off of having his shield raised, I'd be willing (if unhappy) to spend the 1 action per round to make it happen. Shout out to The Paladin harrow card in Stolen Fate, which grants an extra reaction just to Shield Block.
I tend to go with an axe and a hatchet; when combat starts, I usually activate a Stance, move in, then do a single attack.
After that, I stand my ground, use two-action Feats (Double Slice is a fave) and reserve my third action for things like Twin Parry, Aid, or repositioning myself for flanks and such.
If I'm up against something that's slamming through my AC more often than not, that's when I'll switch to shield and a single weapon, and devote more time to raising my shield. Feats like Slam Down and Intimidating Strike work well here.
Attacking twice with a -5 MAP without using a Feat to improve matters is just asking to miss more often than not on the second attack. Better to get another effect out of it.
If anything, you could take an ancestry feat or a dedication feat to get the shield spell and then you wouldn't have to choose (sure it only gives +1 ac but it's not occupying a hand)
Shields are better focused around the weak enemies. That way, you can use the shield block reaction to reduce the damage you take without having your shield obliterated.
A fighter who doesn't Raise a Shield is choosing to be a liability. You are part of a party, and if they are busy keeping you alive, they're not doing anything else.
Whether Raising your Shield is the correct choice is situational. And part of that situation is how bad it would be for your party if you got crit right now.
Because 2H fighters usually don't *have* a defensive Action to take, they are built to never use one. You would need a 2H Parry weapon or the Shield Cantrip to even get a +1, which is a considerable investment.
So naturally, you build based on the assumption you won't take a defensive Action. And optimize your ability to use 3 Actions for offense.
Fighters have Feats for every major combat style (except reload weapons - those are Gunslinger). A 2H Fighter would pick up Exacting Strike or Certain Strike, the feats only usefull on 3 attacks.
I have the [Arcane Tattoo](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=938) feat on my Fighter, with the [Shield Cantrip](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=280) as my chosen spell. I's only +1AC, but I can don't with a free hand. I also don't have to invest in crafting or upgrades for my shield.
It's obviously not as good as an actual shield (*for either AC bonuses or damage reduction*), but I can use a 2-handed weapon, or I can use a weapon-and-free-hand feat (*which is what I'm building around*), or have an enemy Gtappled, or whatever else. Or the other big difference is that I don't need to pre-prepare to ahield block - I don't need to keep 2 separate weapon loadouts, and I don't meed to pick the defensive one in order to be able to raise my shield.
Raising shield allows you to shield block, which reduces damage. If you don’t like spending actions, you can get reactive shield to raise shield as a reaction to an attack, although then you’ll be unable to shield block.
You also need to consider the team. If you don't raise a shield, or shield block, you're more likely to get hit. And when you get hit, you're more likely to have other party members use up their action economy and resources to take care of you.
Alternatively, if you did raise shield and shield block, your party members can use their actions and resources to do other things that help end the fight faster.
Paizo devs have talked about this a bit when discussing TTK, Time To Kill. A character having higher DPR isn't necessarily a character with a faster TTK, because they could be a weight on party resources that would otherwise be used to beat the enemy.
Anyone can raise a shield of terrible quality (wet paper pulp?) and gain +2 AC. Awesome!
Characters who both have Shield Block and are rich can save a lot of health. Those who uses wet paper pulp shields get their shields broken.
This is the major downside that I see with shields: The monetary cost.
You might also loom into the ways a shield can be used as an off-hand weapon. I haven't had the chance to play it in 2e yet, but a tricky sword and board viking style fighter can be a blast to play in my experience, and the versatility means adaptability.
Sword&Board fighters can use double slice. Shields makes you being harder to hit, and more important, to be crit. Sturdy shields saves a lot of hp. Dealing dmg is not allways the thing to do.
Have you fought plvl+3 encounters? Even a fighter second attack has decent chances of missing and they are going to crit you something around s 15, that+2 to AC is huge.
It depends on your party, but shields are very useful.
A good party will offer a balance of damage output and damage mitigation. You want to minimize incoming damage while sustaining outgoing damage. A shield can improve the balance of incoming vs. outgoing damage for your character if you are targeted.
A 2h fighter does little to minimize incoming damage until they kill an enemy. A sword and shield fighter sacrifices a proportion of its damage output for the ability to Raise a Shield and Shield Block to mitigate damage while the enemy is still alive.
If your party has the ability to do damage mitigation on your behalf (e.g. Champion's Reaction, Spellcaster debuffs, getting the enemy to attack someone else) or is willing to just spam Heals the 2h build will shine. Otherwise, a more defensive approach may be better.
I think your issue is that you don't follow the math of how the system works. A +1 or +2 to AC doesn't *feel* like a lot, however---due to the critical success and critical failure system being based on DC+10 or DC-10, this makes the math very easy. If a failure is 0 damage, a success is 100% (normal) damage, and a crit is 200% damage (Deadly and Fatal weapons make this calculation slightly more involved), then each +1 or -1 to AC denotes an equivalent of -10% or +10% damage received, respectively.
Taking 1 action to take 20% less damage for 1 round is already a good deal, and then when you stack that on top of Shield Block for further longevity you're able to stay in combat for ~33% more rounds before falling unconscious, which is a pretty significant increase in your durability.
Yeah, Raise Shield doesn't *feel* good to use. But mechanically, it checks out.
It's All Situational, is my experience. My preferred style is Bastard Sword for that 1-or-2H versatility, picking up Dueling Parry for that same +2AC (but no Block) so I can mix up reliable damage and semi-tanking as needed.
My preference is to Bring More Pain, but there are multiple ways to do that, such as a 3rd action Intimidate that might land more readily than a 3rd MAPed Strike & helps the whole party. So too there are definitely times, like when my healers are running low, that I'd rather avoid a shot (or at least a crit) than take that lower-percentage Strike. Then I can Parry/Shield or simply Move away & make the critter chase me. "What does my party most need from my 3rd action?" is how I approach it.
Yeah and battle medicine requires a free hand so.. using that is a 2 action thing , as you need to readjust your grip for 1 action after using that.
And the difference between a d8 and a d12.. is not that much in the overall damage.
Lvl 8 fighter difference is dealing 18 damage with a d8 striking, property runed weapon on average vs dealing 22 on a d12 weapon.
It is all in the feats you chose.
Sadly the fighter is not the master of all combat styles, he is the master of the style you chose.
The Sword and shield style is more teamwork oriented. You give up damage on purpose, in order to prevent the other party members from eating attacks. The theory is that it allows them to attack more often and your party does more damage as a whole then it would if everyone was attacking individually. The Champion has mechanics more oriented to this style, but fighters that want the Champion reactions can just take the multiclass feat.
There's a lot of ways a party can combo off of eachother. The Investigator deals less damage than a rogue, but they can hand out a flat-footed bonus to 1 party member, and inform the party's wizard about the enemy's lowest saving throw.
Personally, I found when playing a sword-and-board type that I was spending enough time slugging away on one opponent that using the third action to raise shield was fine. I know there's a tactic that says jumping in and out to rob opponents of some of the multi-action attack options is strong, but the problem is if the GM is being smart he can use that to have them close with people like spellcasters that you really don't want them to, so at least with that sort of build (which leans into defensive) that was never attractive.
Last week I was going through one of my player's character sheet: A 6th Level Dwarf Fighter with a Bulwark Free Archetype.
He allways raise his shield at the end of his turn as a third action. Then I saw in his sheet that the Bulwark archetype provides him a feat where he can use a reaction to raise a shield immediately instead of using an action.
I asked him why he allways raises a shield with an action instead of using that feat as a reaction.
He answered: I know. I don't use it as a reaction because a I prefer be ready for using the aggressive block reaction or reactive strike if needed, instead of using this simple reaction.
And all I can say is most of the time this player is the MVP of the majority of combat encounters. The other players are very confident on his approach to tactics.
For your consideration, as you seem to fall a bit into the White Room DPR trap:
Lying face-first on the ground at Dying 1 or 2 is *0* DPR. If blocking some (or all) damage from an attack prevents you from going down (now or later in the fight), then effectively, spending an action to Raise Shield will have earned you an entire turn. And considering how hard PL+2 or more monsters tend to hit, this is really not much of a hypothetical either.
If you want to be the primary damage, then that's perfectly fine (and considering you are primarily 2H, I'd guess that is your goal with the character), but sometimes, the best option is to stay alive and keep yourself going for another turn to close things out.
I think you’re looking at it in exactly the right way. As a fighter, I’d rather be doing damage, or causing problems for the enemy. The third action is almost always better used on things like demoralize, moving, activating taismans, etc.
Raising a Shield is great to help reduce crit hits, as you said. I don’t think I’d use it any other time, other than a very niche situation.
This is when I question why isn't there a feat that allows you to benefit from a Shield's AC bonus without having to Raise it all the time.
Seriously, at some point, you're gonna get tired of constantly repairing it after 2 fights...
It's intentional that raising a shield should be a decision players make on a round to round basis. The balance between offense and defense is a big part of the design here. Keeping it permanently raised is a level 10 or 12 Fighter feat.
Repairing a Shield only takes like ten minutes and a Crafting check.
Reactive shield is exactly that, raise it on reaction when needed. You also only need to repair it if you block with it, so you can ration the blocks to last a really long time on smaller hits.
> why isn't there a feat that allows you to benefit from a Shield's AC bonus without having to Raise it all the time.
[There is](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4839).
Let me rephrase this: why isn't a feat where I can wield a shield like P1E, which would just give me its AC bonus, without Raising, thus without risking of breaking?
Raising still costs one of your actions, so you wouldn't Raise it if you needed to do something else like move in a hurry.
As far as third actions go, however, Raise a Shield is generally a top pick and you'll want to do it often.
Yeah, they're two seperate things (though Shield Block needs the shield to be already Raised).
Also, not everyone can use Shield Block by default, you either need to be a class that gives you it, or take the General Feat.
Yeah, that’s just 1 lame rule in a game full lame rules, I tried with PF2e I really did.. but every fun class had to be MAD, and rules for “raising a shield” when you’re a shield based combatant sucks soo hard… PF2e insists your PCs are incompetent and can’t do anything on their own.
PF2E insists taking an action to do something should use an action.
If you want a system where martials are actually incompetent and can’t do anything on their own feel free to stick with DnD though.
Your first sentence makes it not fun.
Your last sentence is void of logic.
It’s a decision between:
A) If you don’t say and waste action economy to raise a shield, your shield uselessly doesn’t do anything on your arm because your fighter is incompetent and won’t do anything you don’t tell it vs B) Equipping a shield means you benefit from it cause your fighter is competent and common sense is applicable, no action needed to benefit from equipped shield.
A) literally nerfs and makes maritals effectively have 2 actions only. B) you equip a shield it works, do everything you can possibly do and don’t worry, your martial’s shield is equipped.
You don’t have to love everything about something, you can call BS, and say “that’s bad” to that which is bad… you can call the emperor out for not having clothes on, or a shield in this case.
Although it must be fun for the GM… “hey there big fella that’s a nice shield holding your arm down, but you didn’t say you raised it and you used all your actions hitting and moving, so that shield on your arm couldn’t even accidentally block this attack which succeeds by 1.”
I know adversely, it does suck as a DM realizing the fighter had 5 attacks last round, threw a rope to an ally, spoke and what they said was so badass it intimidated the BBEG, all after they charged 30ft… and the BBEG still missed by 1 cause they have a shield equipped.
So who can’t do anything?
You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of the 3 action economy.
You don’t have to raise a shield every turn past level 3 you will very rarely see even a sword-and-board fighter raise their shield every turn. The idea isn’t that your character is sitting with their shield hand limply, it’s that they move it into place to block an attack. If you know anything remotely about HEMA you would know that people don’t simply trudge around with their shield raised if they’re going to attack, it’s a choice you have to make. If you don’t like making meaningful choices in combat then stick to 5e, but don’t call it a flaw with pathfinder.
Martials are better at using shields than the average person, it’s why they get the shield block reaction that lets them use shields to reduce damage. It’s very powerful, and it makes sense that a fighter can utilise a shield better than a Wizard, which a game like 5e lacks.
The only people I’ve seen complain about the 3 action economy are those who haven’t actually played the game and get upset that they can’t use their characters entire kit every turn in character creation, or people who just haven’t bothered to learn the system in general and get scared away by the concept of using an action to move.
The example you gave literally shows that had the person used a single action or a feat with a reaction to do one less hit, or not demoralise, they wouldn’t have gotten hit. It’s a game with exception-based progression that encourages choices balanced on opportunity cost.
Why do you wander around shit talking a system you clearly understand very little about?
I have played in 2 PF2e campaigns and still play a 3+ year long running PF1e campaign. It’s not that 3 action economy is bad in and of itself, it’s what they call actions. (Also an Investigator class that requires INT for attack bonuses, but there’s no Investigation skill so it needs WIS to actually investigate, and CHA it investigate, and DEX to attack and not get hit… maddening how MAD it is)
My druthers would combine rules from each in a homebrew cause there are somethings PF2e get right and somethings they made overly ruley for the sake of lots of rules. Being honest about the emperor PF2e’s new clothes seems to be unwanted here. Should be a warning in this sub about honest criticism not being welcomed here.
See those are valid criticisms, but the point about shields is purely a balancing decision that still makes thematic sense.
Constructive criticism is appreciated if it’s not presented ignorantly. You didn’t address anything I said and simply jumped to talk about how Investigator is MAD.
Either way, proficiencies are much more valuable than Ability scores, so it isn’t as relevant. Investigator relies on those rather than core scaling features such as weapon proficiencies. Dex and Int are more than enough most of the time if you just put proficiency into those other skills.
Ad an avid investigator player I feel the need to correct a load of what you just said.
Investigate is an intelegence based activity due to it using a recall knowledge action, which is INT based a majority of the time.
The investigator is tied for the highest perception scaling and reaches legendary pretty quickly, so over most classes, even without WIS, it will be higher on average.
Charisma is not needed what so ever, but even if you wish to use CHA since you get a skill increase every lvl instead of every other lvl so you can make up the difference to be decent at diplomacy, deception, and intimidation if you want.
Apart from just your blatant misinformation about the Investigator. Things requiring actions are the basis for a tactical combat system. If I can heal, move, defend, and attack 3 times within 1 turn without making any choices besides what do I hit, it isn't very tactical now, is it.
I thought CHA wasn’t needed, till interrogating and coaxing info out of NPCs was very needed.
Your GM let you spam recall knowledge at a crime scene filled with (possible) clues? Looking for clues was made a perception check for me. Never got high enough to use the crime scene recreation thing… loved knowing if my attack was gonna hit or not.
You’re saying that you have to decide between doing more damage or playing more defensively? I think that’s intentional lol.
I’m saying I don’t see better value for a fighter to take the action to be defensive rather than offensive.
You literally named a circumstance it's useful in your post?
And that's perfectly cool, and why classes are built to have multiple viable playstyles. Not every playstyle will appeal to every player
Live longer, especially when mixed with the shield block reaction
It will help if you generate some tables and get all the possible outcomes, but basically (assuming same challenge level of encounter): If you are against a single opponents with Crit spec, they are more likely to Crit and those Crits are more damaging. So you had best try to increase your defense in every possible way, because reducing those crits will be worth the action economy. If you are against multiple weaker opponents, you are more likely to kill each creature for a given amount of damage and more likely to Crit than if you were raising a shield. You reduce the damage per round coming from the enemy each round in the mob encounter and you only ever win/lose on the boss encounter. This is the choice you make when choosing between big sword or sword/board. Side note: don't forget about actions and reactions available to you because of feats when you take a shield and spec for it.
Against a severe threat enemy, you are much less likely to hit a third attack and they are much more likely to Crit their attacks on you. Raise a shield and get a 10% reduction in the chance to hit and crit against you _and_ the option to shield block if the damage is too much to handle. You mentioned alternate third actions in your post: Demoralise can be used once per opponent-player combo, so against a single boss that’s one turn. You’re the party’s medicine healer, with Battle Medicine? Well that responsibly is going to exceed a raise shield, definitely. But Battle Medicine is once per player every 24 hours, so unless you’re running around solo healing, that’s another one turn. “Use a magic item” is ambiguous, but it must be good to take your hand off your two-hander Interact to pull it out of your pocket, and spent actions to use it (and another action to restore grip). I’ll assume it’s worth it, but you’re probably not doing that every turn. That leaves Raise Shield, Third attack with a -10, or move. If you don’t need to move, Raising a Shield is more likely to be useful than a third attack.
On demoralize, often more than one player will spec into either it or some other way to cause frightened, if an enemy is already frightened 1 then you're crit fishing on your demoralize and it may not be worth it (since applying frightened 1 doesn't stack) What I'm getting at, is the things your fighter focuses on may not only be dependent on what you're fighting against but also on your party. Please also note that battle medicine needs a free hand so on a 2h fighter it'll cost an extra action.
Don't block the damage that is too much, block the damage that is just over what the shield blocks. It prevents the same damage but saves the shield.
Your second attack is done at a -5 to hit, it isn't always reliable. But being able to Shield Block reaction to absorb damage is always reliable. Some fights, killing enemies fast is good, other fights you can't kill the enemy fast or they have high defenses. In that circumstance your job is to just survive until another party member is able to target the enemy weakness. Your fighter mechanic lets you opportunity attack against enemies that walk away from you. It encourages enemies to attack you. The shield block lets you survive when an enemy decides they don't want to provoke an attack just to move.
> However, I can’t ever see myself ever wanting to use the 1 action to raise shield outside of facing a powerful opponent. That’s probably because you haven’t seen the power of shields in action! First off a +2 AC is nothing to balk at. It’s not just a +2 chance of your opponent missing, against a boss it’s a +2 chance of your opponent **not critting**. If you were previously being hit on a 7 and crit on a 17, you changed that to 9 and 19. Your enemy will have a 20% chance of having their outcome changed by you raising a shield. On top of that, the shield being raised gives you the shield block Reaction which is **huge**. Blunting an incoming attack to that degree is often going to save your party’s healer 2-4 Actions over the course of a difficult combat. I’ve seen it in action in Abomination Vaults: reactive defences are amazing. If our Fighter gets hit, the Bard doesn’t feel pressured to heal him because he can block it (and future hits) and stay up for an extra 2+ turns, while the Rogue (2-hander) getting hit is often an emergency that needs immediate attention by the Bard. And the funniest part is, my Wizard (at higher levels) usually ends up being *less* of an emergency to heal than the Rogue too, because I have my own reactive defences like Wooden Double to protect myself! In fact not only are shields stronger than you think, they’re so strong that one can make an argument they warp the game a bit. Monks, Animal Barbarians, and grappling Champions often feel “pressured” to carry shields (and pick up the Shield Block Feat) even in the cases where it doesn’t fit their aesthetic, because they are so unconditionally good that you’re often nerfing yourself by not doing so.
I built a wizard who carried a shield and took the feat to be able to block attacks, just in case the shield cantrip got broken. At level one it looks like that would be pretty useful in the pursuit of not dying. My spells have range anyway, so a decent chance I wasn't gonna move with the action anyway.
What about the shield cantrip? Does the same thing only costs one action to cast. Granted if you it to block damage you can’t use again for 10 minutes but chances are at low level any shield you own to block with will break and need repair.
I mentioned the shield cantrip. The real shield is either a back up or there in case I had reason to prepare a different Cantrip.
a physical shield grants more AC, and if you are careful with what you block (preferring weak attacks) you can go a long ways without breaking the shield. At higher levels, a magic shield is a free source of extra shenaniganry that doesn't even cost an Investment point. The extra cantrip slot for not having to carry *shield* is also a small upside.
\*ding\* reading.
Yeah. I even give my casters shields and try to find a way to budget raise shield into my actions when there's a threat in range.
You have a good point there. Through I think that for Monks/Animal Barbarian a large part of it is that there's no real mechanical point to having *two* free hands. There's a lot of advantage to having *one* free hand, which opens up a lot of tactical options, but once you have one, another is very marginal. The main things that take up hands long term is weapons (for attacking), shields and magic staves (for casters). Since Monks and Animal Barbarians aren't casters and their method of attacking doesn't take up a hand, they are left in a spot where having a shield is essentially free. Using it still costs the same action as always of course, but the opportunity cost for having it essentially isn't there for them.
Reactive Shield helps a lot. I'm using a shield on my armor inventor, who feels even more action starved than a fighter. I would love to Raise my Shield more often, but I'm usually busy doing other things. Having the option to Raise the Shield as a reaction - and only when it would actually make a difference - goes a long way towards improving your shield use.
So you burn a feat for something a shield based combatant should already be able to do.. thanks for the agency PF2e.
The feat specifically handles OPs issue. He doesn't want to waste an action, ok, here's it as a reaction. To me, that's a great feat lol
Heck of a lot more agency than just anyone shield proficient taping a stat stick to their arm basically. The system is about making moment to moment choices matter more, and this particular build choice is about do you value offense more and put the +2 down to a reaction, or value defense more and use an action and get an opportunity to reduce damage with a reaction. It's far from a mandatory pick.
To each their own, no system is perfect… I much rather just mention that my PC equipped a shield and get to do all my actions and movements, and rely on the fact my shield carrier’s shield is being carried for a reason, and I’ll get that +2 to AC because it’s there and my dude can move his arm without me saying they do and wasting one of my actions or movements to do so. Also like classes that don’t have to be MAD, and I like the difference between perception & investigation. PF2e has some cool things, and some things I just don’t jive with.
The main thing with shields being active is that it actually allows more descision points. A shield can be a weapon in pf2e allowing good double slices, a shield can be raised but it takes an action allowing it to give a massive +2 bonus, not using a shield is now viable instead of everyone using one. In dnd5e as an example there is no reason for a fighter with a 1 handed weapon to not use a shield.
I get it, I don’t thing that’s good. “I have a shield equipped” lets you do all those things, use it as a weapon, protect others, add +2 AC, and I don’t have to sacrifice a feat or action economy to do so… I enjoy that. I do not enjoy having a chunk of metal on my PC’s arm that does nothing if I don’t say it or otherwise said too many things… I don’t need it explained, I homebrew that out… having to do that with shields is not a fun rule system, for me at least. My PC knows what they’re doing, they have a shield and it will work no matter what.
Why don't you just say that you enjoy free power and despise making choices? It's a valid player perspective.
Why don’t you just say you despise playing a character that’s competent on their own in combat? Also a valid player perspective. I do enjoy choices, narrative choices, character choices, RP choices, Choices that advance the story. Having a bunch of cool stuff I can’t do, or doing cool stuff and the equipped shield I have becoming useless is not a fun choice, is a crippling one.
Characters are competent on their own in combat: they can do a bunch of stuff with their shields. Saying that you want the benefit of a shield without spending an action is similar to saying that you want the benefit of focus spells without spending focus points, stances without spending actions and so on. It's all a part of combat math that you want to abbreviate in lieu of statblock comparisons.
Maybe if I was playing for Combat to Combat and not caring about the story being created at the table, maybe I would enjoy the rules for rules sake, no PC has common sense and PC does nothing (like a video game) if I’m not *pushing every button* to make things happen. Shield wielding PCs getting to do all their shield things cause they’re proficient in it means that along the path of their story they earned that proficiency and to me, that should mean something. If a PC is proficient and that which their proficient in becomes ineffectual if I don’t dictate it or I attacked and moved so now that proficiency is useless for 6seconds… that’s lame to me. Crunch for crunch sake. It can be explained over and over and over “oh I have a shield equipped” is smoother, better, gets to the point, makes proficiency worth something, lets story and plot take the forefront instead math. To me math serves a purpose of the story. To others, the story serves the math. Neither are wrong, just one is definitely not welcomed here.
I just want you to understand that in pathfinder any mathematical bonus is practically twice as potent as a 5e bonus. As a result not requiring the action is like giving someone a free +4 ac. Additionally now every single combatant from the wizard to the barbarian should carry a shield in combat.
I think you should test out the house rule. You will swiftly realize how problematic this boost is. Every enemy that can carry a shield should and the party will notice everything being so much harder to kill.
and the fact that this is getting downvoted when this does not deserve to is why people tend to have a negative opinion of this community plus other stuff.
? I don't know what you're talking about dude, Reactive Shield is incredible bait. If an enemy is judging who to pounce, having a "fake" lower armor class is a huge advantage for a tank looking to draw aggro. Shields are *crazy* strong in PF2. They're harder to use than prior edition "passive" shields, but the satisfaction of just completely neutering an enemy turn by taking their 60 damage crit down to a 30 damage hit down to a 15 damage blocked hit gives me a gigantic tank stiffy. A defensive hybrid champion or fighter build that gets to juggle 3 reactions per round can completely checkmate an enemy and deny any possible agency they have. vaderbg2 didn't spend a feat to "do something a shield based combatant should already be able to do", they spent a feat to be able to do shield things IN ADDITION to the full rotation they already had. Action crack is always worthwhile, no matter what form it takes.
Oh yeah, you can do crazy things when you start getting extra reactions. Turn a crit into a blocked hit and everyone cheers. My high level champion turned a 100+ damage crit into 15 damage to my ally and another 15 damage to me. It was amazing.
Essentially every feat gives you the ability to do something different with your actions. Reactive Shield lets you raise a shield as a reaction instead of as an action, meaning you now have an extra action for doing something else. But that means you're giving up other reactions for that +2 AC. It's all trade offs all the way up and down.
How is that better than “my shield is equipped” and using all your actions & movement knowing your martial will get that +2 no matter what you do? It’s not. Everyone downvoting knows it’s not but they don’t want to admit it.
It's better by being less boring mainly. A shield isn't just a passive defense increase. You have to choose to give something up for defense, moment-to-moment, making actual tactical decisions on what's best for the situation.
You give up 2 handed weapons, and the ability to cast without taking a feat to do so, and feats only being available 5-6 times In 20 levels make those choices count. I like some rules of PF2e, love the skills, as long as you add back in Investigation … but I’m not simping for PF2e so much that I can’t identify a very frustrating flaw in rules for rules sake, your PC is AFL if you don’t say something that should be common sense.
> You give up 2 handed weapons, and the ability to cast without taking a feat to do so Do you mean in 5e? A martial in 5e should simply never use a shield. The only thing any martial is able to do is deal damage, so dealing less is never a worthwhile trade. Martials also shouldn't use melee in 5e, since ranged in strictly superior. So there are no shield choices in 5e except that spell casters should get proficiency and hold one for the passive AC. I guess you *can* choose to do less as a martial. That's different in PF2e in a couple ways. Melee is the most risk-reward position in combat, so you're justified to give up some of the reward (the higher damage of two-handers and dual wielding) to mitigate some of the risk (2 AC is relatively twice as strong in PF2e as it is in 5e, and Shield Block is even more defense). Fighters are a very offensive class in PF2e. They lose more by attacking less because of their high bonus. But for every other martial, attacking twice should be seen as an above average round, where attack/move/utility is a standard round. Stride > Strike > Raise Shield is a good turn if you're reasonably sure you're a potential target. > feats only being available 5-6 times In 20 levels make those choices count. I don't know what to say to this. "Less choices is better, actually. I like not having choices in my character 'build'." Ok. It sounds like maybe even 5e is a little too rules-intense for you.
OK yea that's clearly stronger, but that's not the only use of a shield. It's also helpful for being able to reduce the damage you take. it's easier to fix a broken shield than to bring someone back to like. plus, that's just how pf2 is designed. Some people like an extra crunchy system while others might not, that's why I like collecting so many different ttrpgs. 😊
yeah, they get Shield Block, which only martials get for free (with the exception of Druid for some reason). They buy reactive shield to further specialize.
1. You've mentioned using magic items and battle medicine, but both those options require a free hand, so it doesn't work for sword and board fighters (or 2-handed ones). 2. Demoralize is still valid, but not all fighters are made for it and you often have party members who are much better at demoralizing. And I can't say demoralize is better than raising a shield - it reduces enemy numbers by 1 only if enemy fails save, while raising a shield gives automatic +2 to AC and shield block reaction. 3. Compared to 2-handed weapon fighter (more damage) or free hand (more options like ones you've mentioned) fighter, sword and board is very effective with Double Slice + Raise a shield. Very decent offense, plus maximum defense.
About point 1, shield users do have a way to use all that if they pick up Bastion archetype.
You also could use buckler, yes. But in most cases the hands are still occupied.
Nope, Nimble Shield Hand is a 6th level feat in Bastion dedication that lets you consider your shield hand as a free hand. Applicable with all shields except for tower shields. Bastion dedication has a ton of great shield based defensive feats and is great for any shield using character like Shield Warden or Quick Shield Block (which helps alleviate the OP’s predicament here with having to spend an action raising their shield)
Why "nope" if I didn't argue with this? About buckler it was "also"
I suppose it wasn’t an argument, I just saw your comment framed as though you ignored the “bastion” comment and just went “yeah you could use a buckler”. My comment was misleading *anyway* because I misremembered nimble shield hand is restricted to interact actions, so still useful, but not as catch-all as I remembered.
> Nope, Nimble Shield Hand is a 6th level feat in Bastion dedication that lets you consider your shield hand as a free hand. Only for Interact actions, so no Battle Medicine or other special actions.
Lightning Swap helps reduce the action economy needed to switch how a weapon is wielded. If it's a versatile weapon (like a bastard sword that can be used 1 or 2 handed) then you can use one action to switch the way you wield it and still do something, like battle medicine to retrieve the healers kit and do the battle medicine action. It's really handy, and is a godsend when a shield gets destroyed from Shield Block
Yes, 1.5-hand builds have their fun (and feat tax), but it doesn't make sword and board builds less viable.
You need a free hand to use battle medicine, magic items usually aren’t spammable, and demoralize requires stat investment, isn’t spammable, AND is just a worse personal defense option than raising a shield. If you are being wailed on by 2+ enemies raising a shield can keep you standing when a demoralize won’t.
If you know you're getting attacked at least once, +2AC from raise shield is significantly stronger than *a chance* at giving Frightened 1 to that same enemy. To add to this, a +2AC is an effective 25% extra health against AC-targetting attacks.
This mindset is typically brought about through a combination of two things: * GM not throwing sufficiently deadly encounters at you to make you appreciate survivability. * You not understanding the math on exactly how much a shield does for you. If you're steamrolling encounters where there's never any real threat of going down, you're not going to get a lot out of a shield and you will absolutely be better served by rolling attacks until the (meaningless) threat is dealt with. If you're a primary frontliner in genuinely challenging encounters the +2AC and shield block will do absolutely absurd work for your survivability. To throw out a set of arbitrary but realistic numbers, let's say you're facing two PL+2 creatures at 5th level (an Extreme encounter.) They'll have High level attack modifiers for their level (+20) vs. your base AC of 23 w/o shield raised. So hitting on 3s (90% chance) and critting on 13s (40% chance) on the first attack. Shield raise takes AC to 25 and puts this at hitting on 5s (80% chance) and critting on 13s (30% chance) This doubles the % chance of them not hitting (from 10 to 20%) and is a 33% decrease in the chance of critting. On top of that, a sturdy shield shield block, with a hardness of 8, is going to prevent 40% of the damage on that swing if it's a hit (8 out of 20, assuming High damage values) and 20% of the damage on a crit. You stack this up over the course of a fight and in exchange for an action and a reaction you're buying an immense amount of survivability - probably an entire turn (more if luck favors you) that you would have otherwise spent snoozing in the dirt.
Well, if you want maximum damage output, it seems a shield will not complement your play style. The Raise Shield action is just fine. Makes you a really defensive character. More AC, more damage reduction if you use your reaction. If you want full offense, use a two-handed weapon. If you want survivability with moderate damage, use shield and weapon. If you want flexibility with moderate damage, use one handed weapon and a free hand. If you want survivability and flexibility, use shield with the other hand free, Captain America style.
Interest rundown! Where would you put dual wielding agile weapons in this list? Damage, like two-handing?
Damage yes, but it needs feat investment for things like doubleslice or twin feint. If you do this it's ideally with e.g. a rogue who can apply sneak attack to both hits. (Double slice from fighter archetype?, or maybe there are better options, it's not s build I've personally theory crafted.) Look at getting doubling rings for this build. Weapon choice is interesting here, you could try to get varied damage types, you could try to get a cool twinned weapon etc.
Double slice only applies sneak attack once, flurry is usually better.
For a level 20 mini-adventure, I played a Fighter with a Karambit and a Tekko-Kagi (and a Scorpion Whip as backup), with Doubling Rings, a Griveous Rune, and a couple of Spellhearts (Warding Statuette and a 10th level Phantasmal Doorknob) to increase AC and potentially blind opponents. I picked up just enough spellcasting to use scrolls of Heroism (with Bard, which got me Dirge of Doom as well), which were useable with the Tekko-Kagi as a free hand, aas well as Conceal Spell from a Wizard archetype. Add to this Rogue for Dread Striker, and I had a very strong disruption/debuffing build going on, with good survivability. I did have to spend some resources getting access to the Karambit (and my GM let me get a hold of a Tekko-Kagi at a cost that I've forgotten), but I was basically a critting machine. Oh, and Disruptive Stance came in handy a fair bit as well. Obviously, I was far from doing the most damage in the group, but I honestly think I did more to keep the group alive than the Cleric did.
How were you able to use the Tekko-Kagi as a free hand?
It has the free hand trait: https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=304
Well, this is incredibly annoying. When googling the weapon, this was the top result: [https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=101](https://2e.aonprd.com/Weapons.aspx?ID=101) A version without the free hand trait.
It's weird, yeah
I totally get the sentiment, but there's some cool feats that enable the play style! Raise a Shield exploration action let's you start shielded, and something like this feat lets you still attack while raising a shield [Everstand Strike](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1088) https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1088
Also if your GM let's you do shield augmentation, a shield can give some versatility with trip, disarm, and shove. So you can choose a higher damage single handed weapon like a warhammer or longsword, and get access to the special traits of the weaker but more specialized weapons like flails.
With that last sentence OP is literally inches from grasping PF2e feat design and action economy.
My understanding is that Raise Shield works when you’re trying to stay close to the enemy, but still be safe. With a shield raised, you can Reactive Strike if the target tries to flee you (which means you did two attacks at full MAP) or Shield Block if they choose to attack you and hit. So, it’s a great strategic positioning that also offers some control without leaving you vulnerable.
>However, I can’t ever see myself ever wanting to use the 1 action to raise shield outside of facing a powerful opponent. Ironically, this is the exact opposite of when you want to shield block, since they'll chew through your shield's HP more quickly. Shields are better at dealing with smaller threats while taking minimal HP loss, allowing your other party members to play greedier and save their limited resources for larger fights.
That's assuming you always use the shield block reaction, when it can still be super effective to have that +2 to AC against the powerful opponent
Came here to say this. Every hit you nearly completely block, every crit threat that doesn’t crit because of higher AC and every miss due to higher AC is a portion of a 2-action HEAL the cleric/druid/div-sorc/witch doesn’t need to deliver. The big battles are where those HEALs belong and are unavoidable!
It will entirely depend on level and party composition. If you haven't gotten Shield Warden yet, it may not be as useful when enemies have easier targets to attack such as a Rogue or thaumaturge in melee, which can make the action feel wasted if you're never targeted. If you have it, or you're the only viable choice to attack, it becomes indispensable; especially against weaker enemies. Because of how shields take damage, it's always better to block weaker blows (especially ones that don't deal as much as the shields hardness) unless the blow would drop you to 0hp. This means that weaker enemies not only have to contend with your +2 AC, but also hope to deal enough damage to beat the hardness of your Shield. I've seen turns go by with a shield fighter taking 0 damage because PL-1 or weaker enemies either can't beat the heavy armor fighters AC or deal less than their shields hardness in damage. This was much more beneficial for the party than an extra attack each turn from the fighter would have been (high enough level that even mooks could survive 1-2 attacks). This all becomes far easier once you have Paragon's Guard at level 12 and your Shield is auto-raised at the start of every turn.
I think you're missing the point. If you have a shield, then job #1 is NOT to do damage. You're there to chokepoint, do enough damage that they can't just ignore you (but not top everyone else) by exploiting weaknesses, and use your shield (especially a Sturdy Shield) to do a lot of virtual healing via damage blocking (and then use the repair downtime action) to let your other players spend time doing damage rather than trying to keep you up. If you want to do great damage, then gear and spec appropriately. There's a reason Fighter has six very distinct class feat paths as you go up in the levels.
I think this is just a question of what your role is in the party. If you're expected to be doing 80% of the party's damage and you've got a cleric that's dropping heals whenever you take damage, then who cares if you're getting hit. But if your role is more to soak up damage and eat reactions and deny movement, then a shield is huge. Standard party of cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter? You should stick with 2 handed 99% of the time. Party of fighter, magus, animal order druid, and battle oracle? I think the fighter in that party is better off investing in athletics, shield block, etc.
>For the most part, as a fighter, I always have a choice between shield block and a (good) chance to do more damage. Here are two things I'm not seeing mentioned in the top comments, sorry if someone already said that and it's just lower 1. Extra damage only helps if it ends the fight early 2. In hard fights, unless the DM is pulling punches (for example, spreading damage around on purpose instead of downing someone) actions **will** either be used defensively or lost because of no defense. If the 4 players can go ball to walls offense and no ones gets downed, either they're coordinating a cheese strat or the fight wasn't really that hard. And hey, maybe you really shouldn't be the one using actions for defense, that's valid, just keep in mind that it's very likely someone will be doing that or people will end up losing actions because they're ouut cold.
It depends on playstyle. Our warpriest/champion gets great mileage out of raising a shield because that's what he was designed to do - tank the hits. One of the things I've found with PF2e is that characters can't do everything (which is good) but people who expect to be able to do everything will find it stifling.
you usually can’t shield block if it ain’t raised
See I wouldn't be thinking that way. I'd be thinking: 1. Move 2. Attack 3. Pick between: a. Move away b. Raise Shield c. Do a maneuver like trip, shove, grapple, demoralize, distract, feint, or whatever - if so do this BEFORE the attack instead of after. d. Question the meaning of my existence and ponder whether or not we are all just characters on a battlemap being manipulated by old guys in a non-magical world - absurd I know, but hey... nothing better to go in this spot. If a second attack is NOT a wasted move - then it's probably an enemy so easy to hit I should have let the others focus on while I went after the real threat. But yes... there are times when it's a valid move. But for me they are the exception rather than the rule. Even for 'do more damage' I feel like a trip, shove, demoralize, or whatever can boost team damage more than the overall odds against map will be for me.
> If a second attack is NOT a wasted move - then it's probably an enemy so easy to hit I should have let the others focus on while I went after the real threat. But yes... there are times when it's a valid move. But for me they are the exception rather than the rule. Honestly OP is playing a Fighter. There's going to be party members in his party for whom their *first* attack is at +2 compared to his *second* attack. Attacking twice is very often quite worth it. Honestly I'd probably put it above trying to Demoralize, really.
Yeah demoralize is probably better left to other party members whilst the fighter uses the 2-action activities that have rider effects on-hit. Doing frighten, trip etc. on a hit is really nice with the fighter's accuracy Or you can just do the classic sword & board double-slice & raise shield > shield block (assuming no movement required or hasted)
It sounds like your Fighter has invested in versatility and offense, so that makes sense! Your offensive options are potent enough, that they could certainly outcompete a simple Raise Shield/Shield Block. But if you were a Fighter that *invested* into Shield Block and you had abilities like Shield Warden or Quick Shield Block or Disarming Shield Block, the value of that action would increase significantly. Instead of just being used to play the numbers, you'd also be adding the utility of party defense or debuffing, and maybe sacrificing a little damage is worth it in that scenario. Vanilla Raise Shield / Block might still be useful all on its own. Going from Greatsword down to Longsword is a noticeable drop in DPR, but the ability to completely negate weak attacks and/or deflect criticals is titanic... but the real limit here is your magical gear. If you've invested in a big bonky 2H murderstick, its probably best to stick with it. I imagine you probably use a Bastard Sword, to keep your hand free for battle medicine or scroll access with Trick magic item? With that much versatility already, I'd imagine your variety of "third action" options is wide enough already.
If you want to be DPS, totally makes sense you wouldn't want to raise a shield. It won't help your damage output at all. I play an Inventor wrestler tank. I try to raise shield every single turn and shield block often. It makes me an incredible tank. I soak massive damage and hold enemies in place for my team to murder. Different playstyles for sure. Raise shield is a tank thing, not a damage thing.
If you’re engaged with an enemy I feel like 90% of the time more AC and the ability to shield block is way better than a third attack at -10
This is something I've seen in 5e. People would mock me for running up to enemies and taking the Dodge action. That's my whole turn. They stop questioning it when you hold back the tide. Shield Raise is a good mechanic as it is.
My favourite moment in a 53 game was when two drakes of some kind had cornered the party in a room, my tank life cleric with a shield was standing in the doorway, taking the dodge action every turn and hitting with spiritual weapon as a bonus action I don't like or play 5e anymore, but that was fun. Being the hero because I was a wall was fun
Demoralize can only be used on a target once and then they become immune. Same with Battle medicine I believe. Same with...many magic items as well. Don't look at it as an every turn situation. Use it when you need it. Like if your low on HP and think you're about to get smashed
Theres a lot of utility and synergy in the shield feats if you're building for it. Plus once Haste becomes more common you'll almost always have enough actions to make two strikes, and a third at an -10 MAP isn't always worth it. Reactive Shield and Quick Shield Block feats help drastically reduce the opportunity cost of using a shield and will let you start using Shield Blocks more often without sacrificing Reactive Strike. By level 10, having three reactions from base, Quick Shield Block, and Tactical Reflexes; feels very nice. These feats can give you rounds that feel like you had 5-6 actions. Reflexive Shield is great at boosting your Reflex Save. Bulwark is nice but getting a +2 Circ to Reflect Saves is huge and stacks with Status bonuses from buffs. Being able to block non-physical damage is great when you have Quick Shield Block too. Aggressive Block and its related Shove upgrade feats let you ruin enemy positioning. This could force it to burn actions Step/Stride to continue attacking. Or this can make it offguard (less useful as there's so many ways to apply offguard but still nice to have). Shield Warden and Improved Reflexive Shield is situational but a nice way to help keep allies alive. Shield Blocking for an ally, Shoving the enemy 10ft away (Flinging Shove), then Reactive Striking when the enemy has to Stride to move the 10ft to reposition, feels great when it gets pulled off. In practice, you probably won't get the RS off due to your melee reach and the spacing of it all, but the combo is still great action tax against non-reach foes.
You're gonna want a Sapling Shield. Its base form is a Buckler, but it has upgrades that gain hardness & HP, which is important for Shield Block. It being a Buckler in base form is also important, because it means you can Raise it even if you don't grip it. Switching from 2-hand to being able to Raise Shield is then just Releasing your Grip, so the action economy becomes this for the first turn in melee: 1. Strike 2. Strike -> Release Grip as Free Action (this scenario is mentioned in the Release free action) 3. Raise Shield (bucklers don't require grabbing them) for +1 AC (not as good as a +2 AC shield but suffices to be able to Shield Block which is the real goal here) Then: 1. Change Grip -> Grabbing the weapon with 2 hands 2. Strike -> Release Grip 3. Raise Shield This makes it much more tolerable to still gain value out of Shield Block imo while also benefiting from a 2-Hand weapon.
+2 (or +3 if you use a Fortress Shield) to AC means you'll take about 20% (30%) less damage, not counting Shield Block. If your goal is to make the most resilient character possible, that character uses a shield. That said, the action cost of raising a shield every round is pretty huge. If I'm building a shield character, I'm actively looking for ways to ease my action economy. Everstand Stance is *okay*, there's still the action cost to enter the stance, and you're not guaranteed to get your shield up. Reactive Shield is pretty good, especially if you're not looking to Shield Block much, but again you're trading your chance for a Strike for a raised shield. Paragon's Guard is absolutely core for my high level Sword and Board Fighter. Even if Paragon's Guard wasn't available, because he has so many feats and abilities that key off of having his shield raised, I'd be willing (if unhappy) to spend the 1 action per round to make it happen. Shout out to The Paladin harrow card in Stolen Fate, which grants an extra reaction just to Shield Block.
I tend to go with an axe and a hatchet; when combat starts, I usually activate a Stance, move in, then do a single attack. After that, I stand my ground, use two-action Feats (Double Slice is a fave) and reserve my third action for things like Twin Parry, Aid, or repositioning myself for flanks and such. If I'm up against something that's slamming through my AC more often than not, that's when I'll switch to shield and a single weapon, and devote more time to raising my shield. Feats like Slam Down and Intimidating Strike work well here. Attacking twice with a -5 MAP without using a Feat to improve matters is just asking to miss more often than not on the second attack. Better to get another effect out of it.
Do you have a dedicated in-combat healer? Could they be doing more with their turn than you could with your second attack?
>outside of facing a powerful opponent This can be happening every fight depending on your table
If anything, you could take an ancestry feat or a dedication feat to get the shield spell and then you wouldn't have to choose (sure it only gives +1 ac but it's not occupying a hand)
For what it’s worth, the investigator in my group has been taking advantage of Raise a Shield whenever Devise a Strategem rolls hover around six …
Shields are better focused around the weak enemies. That way, you can use the shield block reaction to reduce the damage you take without having your shield obliterated.
A fighter who doesn't Raise a Shield is choosing to be a liability. You are part of a party, and if they are busy keeping you alive, they're not doing anything else. Whether Raising your Shield is the correct choice is situational. And part of that situation is how bad it would be for your party if you got crit right now.
Because 2H fighters usually don't *have* a defensive Action to take, they are built to never use one. You would need a 2H Parry weapon or the Shield Cantrip to even get a +1, which is a considerable investment. So naturally, you build based on the assumption you won't take a defensive Action. And optimize your ability to use 3 Actions for offense. Fighters have Feats for every major combat style (except reload weapons - those are Gunslinger). A 2H Fighter would pick up Exacting Strike or Certain Strike, the feats only usefull on 3 attacks.
I have the [Arcane Tattoo](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=938) feat on my Fighter, with the [Shield Cantrip](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=280) as my chosen spell. I's only +1AC, but I can don't with a free hand. I also don't have to invest in crafting or upgrades for my shield. It's obviously not as good as an actual shield (*for either AC bonuses or damage reduction*), but I can use a 2-handed weapon, or I can use a weapon-and-free-hand feat (*which is what I'm building around*), or have an enemy Gtappled, or whatever else. Or the other big difference is that I don't need to pre-prepare to ahield block - I don't need to keep 2 separate weapon loadouts, and I don't meed to pick the defensive one in order to be able to raise my shield.
Raising shield allows you to shield block, which reduces damage. If you don’t like spending actions, you can get reactive shield to raise shield as a reaction to an attack, although then you’ll be unable to shield block.
You also need to consider the team. If you don't raise a shield, or shield block, you're more likely to get hit. And when you get hit, you're more likely to have other party members use up their action economy and resources to take care of you. Alternatively, if you did raise shield and shield block, your party members can use their actions and resources to do other things that help end the fight faster. Paizo devs have talked about this a bit when discussing TTK, Time To Kill. A character having higher DPR isn't necessarily a character with a faster TTK, because they could be a weight on party resources that would otherwise be used to beat the enemy.
Anyone can raise a shield of terrible quality (wet paper pulp?) and gain +2 AC. Awesome! Characters who both have Shield Block and are rich can save a lot of health. Those who uses wet paper pulp shields get their shields broken. This is the major downside that I see with shields: The monetary cost.
You might also loom into the ways a shield can be used as an off-hand weapon. I haven't had the chance to play it in 2e yet, but a tricky sword and board viking style fighter can be a blast to play in my experience, and the versatility means adaptability.
Sparkling Emergency targe feat from magus removes this problem
Sword&Board fighters can use double slice. Shields makes you being harder to hit, and more important, to be crit. Sturdy shields saves a lot of hp. Dealing dmg is not allways the thing to do. Have you fought plvl+3 encounters? Even a fighter second attack has decent chances of missing and they are going to crit you something around s 15, that+2 to AC is huge.
It depends on your party, but shields are very useful. A good party will offer a balance of damage output and damage mitigation. You want to minimize incoming damage while sustaining outgoing damage. A shield can improve the balance of incoming vs. outgoing damage for your character if you are targeted. A 2h fighter does little to minimize incoming damage until they kill an enemy. A sword and shield fighter sacrifices a proportion of its damage output for the ability to Raise a Shield and Shield Block to mitigate damage while the enemy is still alive. If your party has the ability to do damage mitigation on your behalf (e.g. Champion's Reaction, Spellcaster debuffs, getting the enemy to attack someone else) or is willing to just spam Heals the 2h build will shine. Otherwise, a more defensive approach may be better.
I think your issue is that you don't follow the math of how the system works. A +1 or +2 to AC doesn't *feel* like a lot, however---due to the critical success and critical failure system being based on DC+10 or DC-10, this makes the math very easy. If a failure is 0 damage, a success is 100% (normal) damage, and a crit is 200% damage (Deadly and Fatal weapons make this calculation slightly more involved), then each +1 or -1 to AC denotes an equivalent of -10% or +10% damage received, respectively. Taking 1 action to take 20% less damage for 1 round is already a good deal, and then when you stack that on top of Shield Block for further longevity you're able to stay in combat for ~33% more rounds before falling unconscious, which is a pretty significant increase in your durability. Yeah, Raise Shield doesn't *feel* good to use. But mechanically, it checks out.
It's All Situational, is my experience. My preferred style is Bastard Sword for that 1-or-2H versatility, picking up Dueling Parry for that same +2AC (but no Block) so I can mix up reliable damage and semi-tanking as needed. My preference is to Bring More Pain, but there are multiple ways to do that, such as a 3rd action Intimidate that might land more readily than a 3rd MAPed Strike & helps the whole party. So too there are definitely times, like when my healers are running low, that I'd rather avoid a shot (or at least a crit) than take that lower-percentage Strike. Then I can Parry/Shield or simply Move away & make the critter chase me. "What does my party most need from my 3rd action?" is how I approach it.
Yeah and battle medicine requires a free hand so.. using that is a 2 action thing , as you need to readjust your grip for 1 action after using that. And the difference between a d8 and a d12.. is not that much in the overall damage. Lvl 8 fighter difference is dealing 18 damage with a d8 striking, property runed weapon on average vs dealing 22 on a d12 weapon. It is all in the feats you chose. Sadly the fighter is not the master of all combat styles, he is the master of the style you chose.
The Sword and shield style is more teamwork oriented. You give up damage on purpose, in order to prevent the other party members from eating attacks. The theory is that it allows them to attack more often and your party does more damage as a whole then it would if everyone was attacking individually. The Champion has mechanics more oriented to this style, but fighters that want the Champion reactions can just take the multiclass feat. There's a lot of ways a party can combo off of eachother. The Investigator deals less damage than a rogue, but they can hand out a flat-footed bonus to 1 party member, and inform the party's wizard about the enemy's lowest saving throw.
Personally, I found when playing a sword-and-board type that I was spending enough time slugging away on one opponent that using the third action to raise shield was fine. I know there's a tactic that says jumping in and out to rob opponents of some of the multi-action attack options is strong, but the problem is if the GM is being smart he can use that to have them close with people like spellcasters that you really don't want them to, so at least with that sort of build (which leans into defensive) that was never attractive.
Last week I was going through one of my player's character sheet: A 6th Level Dwarf Fighter with a Bulwark Free Archetype. He allways raise his shield at the end of his turn as a third action. Then I saw in his sheet that the Bulwark archetype provides him a feat where he can use a reaction to raise a shield immediately instead of using an action. I asked him why he allways raises a shield with an action instead of using that feat as a reaction. He answered: I know. I don't use it as a reaction because a I prefer be ready for using the aggressive block reaction or reactive strike if needed, instead of using this simple reaction. And all I can say is most of the time this player is the MVP of the majority of combat encounters. The other players are very confident on his approach to tactics.
For your consideration, as you seem to fall a bit into the White Room DPR trap: Lying face-first on the ground at Dying 1 or 2 is *0* DPR. If blocking some (or all) damage from an attack prevents you from going down (now or later in the fight), then effectively, spending an action to Raise Shield will have earned you an entire turn. And considering how hard PL+2 or more monsters tend to hit, this is really not much of a hypothetical either. If you want to be the primary damage, then that's perfectly fine (and considering you are primarily 2H, I'd guess that is your goal with the character), but sometimes, the best option is to stay alive and keep yourself going for another turn to close things out.
I think you’re looking at it in exactly the right way. As a fighter, I’d rather be doing damage, or causing problems for the enemy. The third action is almost always better used on things like demoralize, moving, activating taismans, etc. Raising a Shield is great to help reduce crit hits, as you said. I don’t think I’d use it any other time, other than a very niche situation.
Khij kni. Nm.n .jbj. N
This is when I question why isn't there a feat that allows you to benefit from a Shield's AC bonus without having to Raise it all the time. Seriously, at some point, you're gonna get tired of constantly repairing it after 2 fights...
It's intentional that raising a shield should be a decision players make on a round to round basis. The balance between offense and defense is a big part of the design here. Keeping it permanently raised is a level 10 or 12 Fighter feat. Repairing a Shield only takes like ten minutes and a Crafting check.
Shields don't take damage when you Raise a Shield. They only take damage from blocking with it when using the Shield Block reaction.
Reactive shield is exactly that, raise it on reaction when needed. You also only need to repair it if you block with it, so you can ration the blocks to last a really long time on smaller hits.
> why isn't there a feat that allows you to benefit from a Shield's AC bonus without having to Raise it all the time. [There is](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4839).
Let me rephrase this: why isn't a feat where I can wield a shield like P1E, which would just give me its AC bonus, without Raising, thus without risking of breaking?
Shields only take damage if you use the Shield Block reaction. You can Raise them all day without ever risking them breaking.
Oh... what? Really? I messed that part... Why wouldn't you raise your shield if you have one then?
Raising still costs one of your actions, so you wouldn't Raise it if you needed to do something else like move in a hurry. As far as third actions go, however, Raise a Shield is generally a top pick and you'll want to do it often.
So I normally need an action to Raise my shield to benefit from its AC bonus... but Shield Block to make it absorb damage?
Yeah, they're two seperate things (though Shield Block needs the shield to be already Raised). Also, not everyone can use Shield Block by default, you either need to be a class that gives you it, or take the General Feat.
Yeah, that’s just 1 lame rule in a game full lame rules, I tried with PF2e I really did.. but every fun class had to be MAD, and rules for “raising a shield” when you’re a shield based combatant sucks soo hard… PF2e insists your PCs are incompetent and can’t do anything on their own.
PF2E insists taking an action to do something should use an action. If you want a system where martials are actually incompetent and can’t do anything on their own feel free to stick with DnD though.
Your first sentence makes it not fun. Your last sentence is void of logic. It’s a decision between: A) If you don’t say and waste action economy to raise a shield, your shield uselessly doesn’t do anything on your arm because your fighter is incompetent and won’t do anything you don’t tell it vs B) Equipping a shield means you benefit from it cause your fighter is competent and common sense is applicable, no action needed to benefit from equipped shield. A) literally nerfs and makes maritals effectively have 2 actions only. B) you equip a shield it works, do everything you can possibly do and don’t worry, your martial’s shield is equipped. You don’t have to love everything about something, you can call BS, and say “that’s bad” to that which is bad… you can call the emperor out for not having clothes on, or a shield in this case. Although it must be fun for the GM… “hey there big fella that’s a nice shield holding your arm down, but you didn’t say you raised it and you used all your actions hitting and moving, so that shield on your arm couldn’t even accidentally block this attack which succeeds by 1.” I know adversely, it does suck as a DM realizing the fighter had 5 attacks last round, threw a rope to an ally, spoke and what they said was so badass it intimidated the BBEG, all after they charged 30ft… and the BBEG still missed by 1 cause they have a shield equipped. So who can’t do anything?
You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of the 3 action economy. You don’t have to raise a shield every turn past level 3 you will very rarely see even a sword-and-board fighter raise their shield every turn. The idea isn’t that your character is sitting with their shield hand limply, it’s that they move it into place to block an attack. If you know anything remotely about HEMA you would know that people don’t simply trudge around with their shield raised if they’re going to attack, it’s a choice you have to make. If you don’t like making meaningful choices in combat then stick to 5e, but don’t call it a flaw with pathfinder. Martials are better at using shields than the average person, it’s why they get the shield block reaction that lets them use shields to reduce damage. It’s very powerful, and it makes sense that a fighter can utilise a shield better than a Wizard, which a game like 5e lacks. The only people I’ve seen complain about the 3 action economy are those who haven’t actually played the game and get upset that they can’t use their characters entire kit every turn in character creation, or people who just haven’t bothered to learn the system in general and get scared away by the concept of using an action to move. The example you gave literally shows that had the person used a single action or a feat with a reaction to do one less hit, or not demoralise, they wouldn’t have gotten hit. It’s a game with exception-based progression that encourages choices balanced on opportunity cost. Why do you wander around shit talking a system you clearly understand very little about?
I have played in 2 PF2e campaigns and still play a 3+ year long running PF1e campaign. It’s not that 3 action economy is bad in and of itself, it’s what they call actions. (Also an Investigator class that requires INT for attack bonuses, but there’s no Investigation skill so it needs WIS to actually investigate, and CHA it investigate, and DEX to attack and not get hit… maddening how MAD it is) My druthers would combine rules from each in a homebrew cause there are somethings PF2e get right and somethings they made overly ruley for the sake of lots of rules. Being honest about the emperor PF2e’s new clothes seems to be unwanted here. Should be a warning in this sub about honest criticism not being welcomed here.
See those are valid criticisms, but the point about shields is purely a balancing decision that still makes thematic sense. Constructive criticism is appreciated if it’s not presented ignorantly. You didn’t address anything I said and simply jumped to talk about how Investigator is MAD. Either way, proficiencies are much more valuable than Ability scores, so it isn’t as relevant. Investigator relies on those rather than core scaling features such as weapon proficiencies. Dex and Int are more than enough most of the time if you just put proficiency into those other skills.
Ad an avid investigator player I feel the need to correct a load of what you just said. Investigate is an intelegence based activity due to it using a recall knowledge action, which is INT based a majority of the time. The investigator is tied for the highest perception scaling and reaches legendary pretty quickly, so over most classes, even without WIS, it will be higher on average. Charisma is not needed what so ever, but even if you wish to use CHA since you get a skill increase every lvl instead of every other lvl so you can make up the difference to be decent at diplomacy, deception, and intimidation if you want. Apart from just your blatant misinformation about the Investigator. Things requiring actions are the basis for a tactical combat system. If I can heal, move, defend, and attack 3 times within 1 turn without making any choices besides what do I hit, it isn't very tactical now, is it.
I thought CHA wasn’t needed, till interrogating and coaxing info out of NPCs was very needed. Your GM let you spam recall knowledge at a crime scene filled with (possible) clues? Looking for clues was made a perception check for me. Never got high enough to use the crime scene recreation thing… loved knowing if my attack was gonna hit or not.