Magic Lacquer Reinforcement: The Solution for Splitting and Peeling Nails

Magic lacquer reinforcement is a technique used to strengthen and protect the nails. It involves applying a special type of lacquer that contains reinforcing elements to the nail surface. This technique is often used by individuals who have weak or brittle nails that are prone to breaking or splitting. The magic lacquer used in this technique contains ingredients such as calcium, keratin, and silk protein, which help to strengthen the nails and prevent damage. The lacquer is applied to the nails in thin layers, allowing each layer to dry before applying the next. The layers of lacquer create a protective barrier over the nails, making them less susceptible to damage from everyday activities.

Yes. Or rather, you can cast a spell of 9th-level or lower (or 7th-level in the case of non-tradition spells). A fireball heightened to 9th-level fits that criteria.

Tried to raise the shield often during my early levels, however I found that that amount of actions wasted for raising it versus the amount of attacks actually targeting me was not worth the cost. Spells are powerful, and spellcasters get a lot of them - do martials receive anything that can compare either in- or out-of-Combat to the sheer variety, flexibility, customizability, volume , and power of spells.

The layers of lacquer create a protective barrier over the nails, making them less susceptible to damage from everyday activities. In addition to strengthening the nails, magic lacquer reinforcement can also improve the appearance of the nails. The lacquer is available in a variety of colors, allowing individuals to choose a shade that complements their skin tone or outfit.

Shields and Spellcasters

Hi everybody!
Can spellcasters freely use shields in Pathfinder 2e? Can they cast spells while they are embracing a shield other than a buckler? Thank you very much, happy life and happy gaming, and stay healthy and safe!

Yup, nothing stops them from using shields.

In fact, I do not really understand why people prefer the Shield cantrip (+1 to AC) rather than a mundane Shield (+2 to AC) for casters.

Thank you very much indeed, and can spellcasters cast spells while they are using a shield? Many thanks again, I think I need to wrap my Head around the New Pf2 mechanics.

Fun fact if you are worried about provokeing wile casting adjcent rasing a sheild gives you an intresting defencive option b4 casting and if you happen to have sheild block even better.

Wielding a shield does not prevent casting per se. However, if the spell has a Material or Focus component, you must have a free hand to provide that component and cast the spell.

Also raising a shield to benefit from its AC bonus (and use the Shield Block reaction if you have it) takes one of your 3 actions, and thus might compete with other activities, including casting.

That said, most spells take 2 actions to cast, so casting and raising the shield can be done on the same turn.

Good point about raising the shield before casting. I had not thought of that.

Casters should definitely consider carrying a shield, even a buckler to gain that Cantrip slot back, though there are some drawbacks:
1) Bulk seems the most obvious for the +2. That's a dent in one's Bulk budget if not boosting Str.
2) Shield Block. Only Druids get this (and Primal doesn't have Shield) and squishy casters will often want to block the first time they're hit. Not necessarily wise if subject to future attacks, but 1 action/round isn't cheap so there's give and take. Of course if they take the Shield Block feat (and have a durable shield), then the multiple blocks from a shield become superior.
3) Hands. Not generally an issue since only 3-action spells require hands, but if those are what the caster likes (perhaps Wall spells or AoE Heal for example), they'll need one hand free. Juggling wands, staves, scrolls, etc. might make bearing a shield too a bit much. There could also be other actions or utility options lost in giving up a free hand, i.e. climbing.
4) Appearances. Seems silly perhaps, but it's one reason I feel awkward having my Monks carry shields! One wants to look cool.
5) Usage. Tied to all of the above. Some players are so busy spending their 3 actions on other stuff that carrying a shield their PC uses seldom simply isn't of enough value to outweigh all the above costs (however minor individually). That doesn't keep the PC from taking Shield for an emergency, or with the intent to burn it ASAP.
Why carry a shield you're hardly using?

I could also see both taking Shield and carrying a shield. Cast the former to get the h.p. out of it; raise the latter to keep getting AC. Yet often it's simply better to move!

Druids don't get the Shield cantrip by default, so a shield makes more sense for them.

Hands get to be a problem when you start using wands and staves.

I tried it and found it good early. But more than two thirds of the time I just didn't raise it at all. Its still useful if you can afford the bulk. I rarely used Shield Block - wooden shields aren't the best.

It is about hands and actions, what else are you using them for?

Thank you so much for all your infos and advice! This is a great community and Pathfinder 2 is definetely becoming one of my go-to-games when it comes to fantasy! Have an happy life and happy gaming, and keep yourself and your dearest safe!

In fact, I do not really understand why people prefer the Shield cantrip (+1 to AC) rather than a mundane Shield (+2 to AC) for casters.

Stylistic choice? Carrying an actual physical shield around is really very unwizardly.

Could be the bulk or hands, too.

In defense of the shield cantrip, as some have mentioned, the bulk can be a concern. Also, you automatically know how to "shield block" with a shield cantrip, albeit once a combat. With a normal steel shield, with taking the feat, you only get an AC bonus (which is not something to ignore by any means). In addition, the hardness of the shield cantrip is nothing to sneeze at 5 (the same as a steel shield). At 3rd level that raises to 10.

While you can only block basically once per combat (1 per 10 minutes) it can be a not insignificant damage reduction. Low level shields basically break after one black anyways, and consider it a shield you that automatically repairs itself after each battle.

The reason casters use the shield cantrip is because they can shield block with it without having the feat. It also requires no free hands (verbal only) and blocks a significant amount of damage which can save your life (10 damage at level 5, while a Sturdy Shield gets that at level 7).

Over all, it's a good cantrip for what it gives you. Actual shields are also good in their own ways.

I prefer the additional +1 to AC to a once per combat block. Obviously YMMV.

I have not done the math though, so I am not sure which is better on just the damage prevention part.

4) Appearances. Seems silly perhaps, but it's one reason I feel awkward having my Monks carry shields! One wants to look cool.

it's absolutely this for me.

Almost as silly as doing crane style attacks with 1 hand because you're holding a bow in the other hand to switch to monastic archery.

Shields are also expensive and take a good amount of your wealth to keep upgrading.

Also nothing stops from using the shield cantrip and after it pops use a normal raise a shield.

I prefer the additional +1 to AC to a once per combat block. Obviously YMMV.

I have not done the math though, so I am not sure which is better on just the damage prevention part.

I've never used the Shield cantrip more than once per combat. And the blocking is excellent and can save your life. So, personally, it's Shield cantrip over normal shields.

As a side note, Shield cantrip saved my life (from massive damage).

Why upgrade your shield if you don't have the shield block reaction, or if you don't intend to use it. I normally just used a very cheap wooden shield and only every once blocked with it (Druid) - because I had to to stay up. I later replaced it with a new once. Cost? Neglible. Investment of Resources Neglibile.

I prefer the additional +1 to AC to a once per combat block. Obviously YMMV.

I have not done the math though, so I am not sure which is better on just the damage prevention part.

it depends on a lot of factors really.

an additional +1 to the AC would be superior if you get targeted a lot, while a once per combat temp HP would be superior if you are targeted less.

For most arcane/occult casters i find spending the 3rd action (assuming 2 actions to cast) to move in a more protected position, behind the frontline, getting cover,and etc, to offer more active survivability compared to "raise shield" in a lot of cases.

But for other casters that are more close to the fray, like warpriests, some bards, and etc, a normal shield could be better.

I am confused why would you choose shield cantrip over shield block?

You can easily have both, start with Sheild Cantrip and after it is used up raise a normal shield.

Shields are quite interesting in PF2, since they can potentially be really good rather than other games where they are just basic 1/2 ac.

As others as stated you need a free hand for casting material spells. So normally you are good to go if you want to carry a shield.

I am confused why would you choose shield cantrip over shield block?

You can easily have both, start with Sheild Cantrip and after it is used up raise a normal shield.

Shields are quite interesting in PF2, since they can potentially be really good rather than other games where they are just basic 1/2 ac.

As others as stated you need a free hand for casting material spells. So normally you are good to go if you want to carry a shield.

I went over above why the Shield Cantrip is good. Not every class gains Shield Block for free, and taking up your 3rd level General Feat isn't in the budget for most caster builds. You also wouldn't be good to go if you wanted to carry a Staff, which is very common for casters now.

I prefer the additional +1 to AC to a once per combat block. Obviously YMMV.

I have not done the math though, so I am not sure which is better on just the damage prevention part.

it depends on a lot of factors really.

an additional +1 to the AC would be superior if you get targeted a lot, while a once per combat temp HP would be superior if you are targeted less.

For most arcane/occult casters i find spending the 3rd action (assuming 2 actions to cast) to move in a more protected position, behind the frontline, getting cover,and etc, to offer more active survivability compared to "raise shield" in a lot of cases.

But for other casters that are more close to the fray, like warpriests, some bards, and etc, a normal shield could be better.

The point about the 3rd action is just as true for the Shield cantrip.

Casting the Shield cantrip is the equivalent to raising a shield.

I am confused why would you choose shield cantrip over shield block?

You can easily have both, start with Sheild Cantrip and after it is used up raise a normal shield.

Shields are quite interesting in PF2, since they can potentially be really good rather than other games where they are just basic 1/2 ac.

As others as stated you need a free hand for casting material spells. So normally you are good to go if you want to carry a shield.

I went over above why the Shield Cantrip is good. Not every class gains Shield Block for free, and taking up your 3rd level General Feat isn't in the budget for most caster builds. You also wouldn't be good to go if you wanted to carry a Staff, which is very common for casters now.

The Nimble shield hand feat from the Bastion archetype would help with this and now sounds good for casters.

I feel that at low levels the advantages brought by the Shield cantrip might be worth the - 1 to AC. But later on, when being hit means losing a fair amount of HPs, a real shield sounds better IMO.

I feel that at low levels the advantages brought by the Shield cantrip might be worth the - 1 to AC. But later on, when being hit means losing a fair amount of HPs, a real shield sounds better IMO.

That feat only allows you to use your shield hand for Interact actions, and providing a material component requires a Manipulate action. Sorcerers and Oracles can actually ignore Material components completely due to their class features, by replacing them with more somatic components, so those two classes would be fine with a shield (which is why my oracle has one). Witches and Wizards still need to use a free hand, and Bards, Clerics and Druids all can hold a focus/instrument to cast instead of use materials, but that still requires the use of a Manipulate action.

I went over above why the Shield Cantrip is good. Not every class gains Shield Block for free, and taking up your 3rd level General Feat isn't in the budget for most caster builds. You also wouldn't be good to go if you wanted to carry a Staff, which is very common for casters now.

I don't see why not. You can cast spells requiring somatic components while holding things in your hands. You wouldn't be able to cast spells requiring material components, but those are pretty rare. I'm playing a 9th level sorcerer, and I think the only spell I have that requires a material component is three-action Heal (not that sorcerers need to bother too much with material components).

I feel that at low levels the advantages brought by the Shield cantrip might be worth the - 1 to AC. But later on, when being hit means losing a fair amount of HPs, a real shield sounds better IMO.

That feat only allows you to use your shield hand for Interact actions, and providing a material component requires a Manipulate action. Sorcerers and Oracles can actually ignore Material components completely due to their class features, by replacing them with more somatic components, so those two classes would be fine with a shield (which is why my oracle has one). Witches and Wizards still need to use a free hand, and Bards, Clerics and Druids all can hold a focus/instrument to cast instead of use materials, but that still requires the use of a Manipulate action.

Come to think of it, wielding a shield only requires one hand ;-)

Mmm. Magical Captain Andoran FTW.

I had a primal sorcerer that carried a shield (no shield cantrip). I literally never used it. I would carry it around, but never had it raised. Either that third action was too valuable to use doing something else, or I was so far away from the front lines that I didn't have to worry about the AC.

I don't see why not. You can cast spells requiring somatic components while holding things in your hands. You wouldn't be able to cast spells requiring material components, but those are pretty rare. I'm playing a 9th level sorcerer, and I think the only spell I have that requires a material component is three-action Heal (not that sorcerers need to bother too much with material components).

I mentioned in a later post that sorcerers don't have the problem at all and can have both hands full and still cast things with materials just fine, since they can freely replace them with more somatic components. Only Sorcerers and Oracles can do this, which is one reason a Life Oracle should always cary a shield.

In fact, I do not really understand why people prefer the Shield cantrip (+1 to AC) rather than a mundane Shield (+2 to AC) for casters.

It has the advantage for builds that need both hands that its only vocal. And of course you don't have the Bulk of a shield to deal with. If you're not someone who gets a lot of use otherwise out of your third action, it can seem an okay choice.

I don't see why not. You can cast spells requiring somatic components while holding things in your hands. You wouldn't be able to cast spells requiring material components, but those are pretty rare. I'm playing a 9th level sorcerer, and I think the only spell I have that requires a material component is three-action Heal (not that sorcerers need to bother too much with material components).

I mentioned in a later post that sorcerers don't have the problem at all and can have both hands full and still cast things with materials just fine, since they can freely replace them with more somatic components. Only Sorcerers and Oracles can do this, which is one reason a Life Oracle should always cary a shield.

Sure, but even so, none of the spells I have would require material components even if I didn't have the sorcerer ability to ignore them.

I actually counted, and the number of spells in the CRB that have material components in a relevant fashion (i.e. casting time measured in actions, not minutes), and it's only about 50-55, a significant number of which are either summons or walls. It goes up to about 60 if you include focus spells.

I prefer the additional +1 to AC to a once per combat block. Obviously YMMV.

I have not done the math though, so I am not sure which is better on just the damage prevention part.

it depends on a lot of factors really.

an additional +1 to the AC would be superior if you get targeted a lot, while a once per combat temp HP would be superior if you are targeted less.

For most arcane/occult casters i find spending the 3rd action (assuming 2 actions to cast) to move in a more protected position, behind the frontline, getting cover,and etc, to offer more active survivability compared to "raise shield" in a lot of cases.

But for other casters that are more close to the fray, like warpriests, some bards, and etc, a normal shield could be better.

The point about the 3rd action is just as true for the Shield cantrip.

Casting the Shield cantrip is the equivalent to raising a shield.

in the case of the Shield cantrip, that one action that you will take infrequently, like maybe once or twice per encounter, comes with the temp HP, while in the case of Shields it's an action you want to take in most of your rounds in order to gain benefit from the additional +1.

in short, you mostly "Raise Shield/Shield" as a caster when you are pressured to do so. The less times you have to do so, the more the scale tilts towarsd the 1 action that offer the most benefits for that single activation of it, which is the cantrip due to the temp HP.

If it was an action that you would take frequently, like every round/every second round, then the shield would be superior, but if it's something that you only do once or max twice per encounter, then the cantrip is the superior.

As for wy not take both, because there are other general feats that you may want to take that are more important for you. Shield block is a nice feat, but it's not that much better than some other alternative feats at those levels.

Using a real shield rather than the cantrip frees one of your cantrip slots though.

And you want that +1 to AC in exactly the same circumstances as you might want the "temp HP" : when you are about to get hit by an attack.

Unless you specifically use the cantrip only when you are sure that +1 to AC will not make any difference.

Real shields take a hand. That's the main reason to choose the cantrip over the shield.
And the cantrip gives better protection thanks to the temp HP. +1 AC is 10-15% less damage, which is way less than the amount of temporary hit points the cantrip gives you.

I do need to make the calculations ;-)

Note though that the "temporary hit points" only exist once per combat, as opposed to true temporary hit points.

And once you used the ability, you also lose the +1 to AC for the rest of the fight.

In fact, I do not really understand why people prefer the Shield cantrip (+1 to AC) rather than a mundane Shield (+2 to AC) for casters.

It has the advantage for builds that need both hands that its only vocal. And of course you don't have the Bulk of a shield to deal with. If you're not someone who gets a lot of use otherwise out of your third action, it can seem an okay choice.

Shield is the classic barbarian cantrip. And now I wonder how well it works for either cloistered or armoured clerics.

Shield is the classic barbarian cantrip. And now I wonder how well it works for either cloistered or armoured clerics.

Healer-Warpriest here, i.e. defensive spellcasting build, so anything I say might not apply to offensive Warpriest builds. Steel shield and cantrip have proven mostly useless over 8 levels of play because:

a) Action economy: Plain movement is in many cases straight out better or even required as your 3rd action, especially for 30' or touch spells (or related actions like Reach Spell), or to get you out of the immediate danger zone before you actually need your shield. Receiving the benefits of a haste spell makes it so much easier to implement a routine not unlike martials, i.e. cast a spell, move, raise shield (which was my original character concept of a passive aggressive flanker, which I quickly had to drop when reality hit).

b) Unreliability: As a second line character in a 5 player group I get rarely hit, and when I do get hit I usually do not have the shield up anyway (our GM is a little picky whom to attack and when, avoiding the tanky chars mostly; raging Barbarians and Wizards make for much juicier targets than a dedicated sword and board Fighter or a shield ready Warpriest). Tried to raise the shield often during my early levels, however I found that that amount of actions wasted for raising it versus the amount of attacks actually targeting me was not worth the cost. I think I actually blocked like once during the first 4 levels of play (like in used the Warpriest build-in shield block ability).

That is not to say that the shield is fully useless, because I have used it to good effect (the AC bonus) when I absolutely, positively needed to stand my ground, like blocking a doorway or off-tanking a mook to share damage, however in competion with Recall Knowledge, Reach Spell, Stride, Battle Medicine, Guidance cantrip, Sustain a spell or similar 3rd actions like storing and retrieving items, increasing Bless radius etc it has yet to see regular use (also due to the equipment unfriendly AP environment I was still using my level 1 steel shield @ level 8 until lately).

an additional +1 to the AC would be superior if you get targeted a lot, while a once per combat temp HP would be superior if you are targeted less.

The lacquer can also be used to add shine and gloss to the nails, creating a polished and professional look. To apply the magic lacquer reinforcement, individuals should start by ensuring that their nails are clean and dry. They can then apply a base coat of clear nail polish to the nails, which will help the lacquer adhere to the nails. After the base coat has dried, they can begin applying thin layers of the magic lacquer, allowing each layer to dry before applying the next. Once the desired thickness and strength are achieved, a top coat can be applied to seal in the lacquer and provide extra protection. Overall, magic lacquer reinforcement is a technique that can be used to strengthen and protect the nails. It is a popular choice for individuals with weak or brittle nails, as well as those who want to improve the appearance of their nails. By applying thin layers of the magic lacquer, individuals can create a protective barrier that helps to prevent damage and promotes healthy nails..

Reviews for "How Magic Lacquer Reinforcement Can Improve the Longevity of Your Nail Art"

1. Emily - 2 stars: I was really disappointed with the Magic lacquer reinforcement. I applied it to my nails as instructed, but it didn't do anything to strengthen them. My nails continued to be weak and kept breaking. I even tried using it for a longer period of time, but still no results. Overall, I found this product to be ineffective and a waste of money.

2. Jason - 1 star: This Magic lacquer reinforcement was a complete letdown for me. It not only failed to reinforce my nails, but it also made them look worse. The lacquer left a sticky residue that was difficult to remove, and instead of making my nails stronger, it actually made them more brittle. I ended up having to cut my nails shorter because they kept splitting. I would not recommend this product to anyone looking for nail strengthening.

3. Samantha - 2 stars: I had high hopes for the Magic lacquer reinforcement, but unfortunately, it didn't live up to its claims. After using it for a few weeks, I saw no improvement in the strength of my nails. In fact, some of my nails even started peeling and becoming more fragile. Additionally, the lacquer had a strong chemical smell that was unpleasant to deal with. I had to stop using it and look for an alternative nail strengthening product.

4. Alex - 1 star: I regret purchasing the Magic lacquer reinforcement. Not only did it not strengthen my nails, but it also caused them to become more prone to chipping and breaking. The lacquer itself was difficult to apply smoothly and left streaks on my nails. I found the whole experience frustrating and a waste of time. I would advise others to avoid this product and opt for a different nail reinforcement option.

5. Claire - 2 stars: I was highly disappointed with the Magic lacquer reinforcement. Despite following the instructions and using it consistently, I did not see any improvement in the strength of my nails. They continued to break easily, and the lacquer didn't provide any added protection. Furthermore, the product had a strong odor that lingered on my nails even after it dried. Overall, I found this product to be ineffective and wouldn't recommend it for anyone looking to strengthen their nails.

How to Repair Damaged Nails with Magic Lacquer Reinforcement