D&D 3E/3.5 3.0 Shield in 3.5

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3.0 Shield in 3.5

Immunity against the most broken lvl1 spell is not bad IMHO.

Half-immunity.

You can still get magic missiled from the other side.

-Hyp.

 

[JChung2003]

Well, damn. Why didn't they put that in the errata instead of the FAQ? *groan*

Also, why not update the SRD while they're at it? *sigh*

Since 3.0 shield isn't going to be in 3.5, I would probably make the researched version of the spell an actual cover bonus that prevents attacks of opportunity and not the errata'ed version, which is less powerful.

Still level 2?

 

[AuraSeer]

Well, damn. Why didn't they put that in the errata instead of the FAQ? *groan*

Also, why not update the SRD while they're at it? *sigh*

WOTC seemed to abandon the errata files fairly early. Answers went into the FAQ, even when they corrected (or contradicted) the book text. Dunno why they did it this way, but I've learned just to check the FAQ first.

As for the SRD, I assume they're concentrating on the 3.5 version. There's not much sense in spending time (aka money) on the version that's disappearing in a couple of months.

Since 3.0 shield isn't going to be in 3.5, I would probably make the researched version of the spell an actual cover bonus that prevents attacks of opportunity and not the errata'ed version, which is less powerful.

Still level 2?

With those advantages I'd call it a level 3. If you want the ability to cast in combat without suffering AoOs, the only other spell to use is improved invisibility at 4th level. Carrying an actual tower shield works, but incurs a hefty spell failure chance.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you want the ability to cast in combat without suffering AoOs, the only other spell to use is improved invisibility* at 4th level.

* depending on your DM's interpretation of AoOs against invisible opponents.

-Hyp.

 

[Eldragon]

Well, first of all, If you have 1/2 or better cover, you dont get attacks of opportunity against you. Its very clear on page 132 of the PHB. Not alot of room open to "DM Interpretation".

It is my understanding that 3.5 shield is only getting clarifications, not a total rewrite.

I believe (but I have not evidence to back this up) that the new shield will be rewritten to reflect the changes noted in the errata.

e.g. Shield gives +7 shield bonus from one direction, and +3 to reflex saves on spells originating from that direction. Additionally, Shield protects the caster from magic missles from the direction the shield covers.

Notice how the only real change is how cover has been removed from the description?

The version of the spell that gives a +4 Shield bonus to ac, a +3 reflex bonus, and immunity to magic missles is the Neverwinter Nights version of sheild (Actually its in the upcoming expansion). They are making it this way because NWN does not account for facing very well, and having the player specify the direction of the shield will confuse the average user.

While both versions are fairly well balanced (and both belong at level 1, IMHO) I believe the pen and paper version needs to have the version of shield with facing to create more interesting strategies in game. Players need to surround a wizard, rather than just walk up to him.

Let face it, the +7 AC bonus is nothing when you are dealing with a wizard who cant wear armor. stacked with mage armor and a modest dex of 14, thats only an AC of 23. Sounds high, but most fighting types can usually hit that AC with little difficulty around level 6 or so.

 

[rhammer2]

Cover stops AOO, concealment just causes the miss chance. All invisibility spells give concealment not cover.

With those advantages I'd call it a level 3. If you want the ability to cast in combat without suffering AoOs, the only other spell to use is improved invisibility at 4th level. Carrying an actual tower shield works, but incurs a hefty spell failure chance.

 

[AuraSeer]

Right, there's a whole debate over whether an invisible opponent can draw AoOs or not. That's not really my point; I was just assuming the interpretation that's most beneficial to the caster.

If you happen to allow AoOs on invisible creatures, then AFAICT there is no spell at all that lets you avoid AoO. (The only options are carrying a tower shield and suffering spell failure, or hiding behind actual physical cover.) In such a case, JChung2003's new shield becomes even more desirable. I would still put it at level 3, but a more conservative DM could argue for putting it at level 4 or even 5.

 

[Ravellion]

The +4 AC Shield was also in D20 Modern. I hope that that one gets used officialy, I hate facing rules (sort of) in a game without facing. It is also too much work, and it alone makes not using minis even harder.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you happen to allow AoOs on invisible creatures, then AFAICT there is no spell at all that lets you avoid AoO. (The only options are carrying a tower shield and suffering spell failure, or hiding behind actual physical cover.)

Spells can provide actual physical cover, though.

Summon Monster comes to mind.

-Hyp.

 

[JChung2003]

As for the SRD, I assume they're concentrating on the 3.5 version. There's not much sense in spending time (aka money) on the version that's disappearing in a couple of months.

With those advantages I'd call it a level 3. If you want the ability to cast in combat without suffering AoOs, the only other spell to use is improved invisibility at 4th level. Carrying an actual tower shield works, but incurs a hefty spell failure chance.

Hmm, are they getting rid of the 3.0 SRD then? I can understand them not wanting to devote manpower to updating it, but getting rid of it altogether seems a little excessive, considering the abundance of d20 3.0 material that is already out there. I would hope they keep it available in an archive at least, like what the Linux people do with older versions of Linux.

Similarly, I hope they keep 3.5 available when they put out 4.0 in a couple years.

Whoops, I'm derailing my own thread, haha!