Shields not adding defense?

I have a rare shield with one of the four stats saying "+48% Block" in addition to the standard 25% block and the 48% is not showing on my character stats. Just the 25%?

The 'standard 25% block' is the value after it has been increased by 48% from the mod.

Mods like this are local to the item, like Increased Armor on a helmet only applies to the armor value of the helmet itself.

As @Recette#7571 explained, the "% increased block chance" modifier is local to the shield and adds only a percentage of the existing base block chance value (not 48% flat block chance).

However, a shield with "48% increased Block chance" should probably show an augmented block chance of 37-38% (where the base chance is 25-26%).

A buckler with this modifier should show an augmented block chance of 29-30% (where the base chance is 20%). E.g. 0.20 X 1.48 = 0.296



Is your shield equipped on your currently selected weapon set when you view your character sheet? You do not gain any benefit from equipment in the weapon set that is not currently selected. It is also possible that an equipped shield is currently unusable (and red), due to attribute requirements, but in that case you would expect to have no block chance from it. The shields and bucklers with "% increased Block Chance" in my stash showed the correct block chance on the item and character sheet.


There can be other modifiers that relate to block, but do not alter your general block chance.

E.g.,
"% increased Block recovery"
"maximum block chance" (this would affect your maximum cap for block)
conditional block such as "chance to block IF ...", "to block against projectiles"

Conditional affixes would not be shown against your general block chance, since they don't always apply, though projectile or melee strike block chance may be shown separately. You will also find conditional modifiers on the passive tree.

One is found on a unique buckler as "100% increased Block chance against Projectiles." Some uniques might have a special attribute that locks the block chance at a specific value (Saffell's Frame removes block).


Also note that "increased Defences" would not apply to your block chance, but only to the Armour, Evasion, or Energy Shield on your shield or applicable armour.


If you still feel that something is wrong or need further explanation, you can copy the attributes of your shield on PC by pressing CONTROL-C while hovering over it with your mouse, then paste the result in your message (you could also take a screenshot, but would need to post it to another site to then link it here).

Ok that makes sense then that it is only increasing the base 25% by 48% of 25 then. The description makes it sound like it should be the base 25% + 48%.

Perhaps they should add that nuance to the description of the item and say "+48% of base block" then.

Thanks for explaining folks.

The operative term here is "increased." Any time you see that, it is as you see on the shield. If it were added to base chance, you would see "+48% to block chance" (which does not yet exist in PoE2).

It does say "+41% increased block chance" hence my initial confusion. I will see if I can get a screenshot.

https://imgur.com/a/HR3e0TX

The top numbers are blue because they are being increased by the modifiers on the item. They would be white otherwise.

"

BellatorMonk#4008 wrote:

It does say "+41% increased block chance" hence my initial confusion. I will see if I can get a screenshot.

https://imgur.com/a/HR3e0TX

I mean by them using the word increased. When a mod is additive to base chance, they use the word "to" instead. So "+41% increased block chance" vs. "+41% to block chance."

I get that some people were raised/educated with Common Core English/Writing and most of us were not. I am for sure not singling out anyone here on the forums, just pointing out that in my age group these two sentences meant the exact same thing.

"+41% increased block chance" vs. "+41% to block chance."

If the description actually said in plain English "+41% OF BASE block chance" then it certainly would leave ZERO room for interpretation.

I have no idea what I said to deserve the insult but I assure you I am not on common core.

I'm not saying the 2 sentences have a different meaning in English. What I am trying to explain to you, which you seem to have a really hard time understanding, is that GGG uses the 2 different wording conventions to mean the 2 different things I laid out.