Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MG.0" data-source="post: 6692585" data-attributes="member: 6799436">WRONG!!!&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &lt;--------&nbsp;&nbsp; Look I can do it too! Shouting doesn't make it right, and in this case you are wrong.Apparently you object to the Shield spell in its entirety since it allows precisely this and not just with regard to surprise, but any attack.Riddle me this, oh genius:&nbsp;&nbsp; If a wizard is in combat with several foes, some of which are invisible and silenced. Can he cast Shield to defend against an attack from one of the invisible creatures? By your stance, he &quot;wouldn't see it coming&quot; either, but the rules definitely allow it. I can think of more than a few narratives that would work in that situation to boot.Someone here doesn't understand the rules...but it isn't me.Edit:&nbsp;This post was a little harsher than I intended. I really don't think either method is bad or wrong. It's just you seem to be taking a very adversarial &quot;You are wrong!&quot; approach that bugged me. I've left the text as originally posted because I don't believe in revisionist history, but wanted to add that I think we can agree to disagree. I will no longer argue the point. Suffice to say I am certain that the way I have chosen is the way I will continue to play as my group has already agreed on it...even the assassin.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MG.0, post: 6692585, member: 6799436"] WRONG!!! <-------- Look I can do it too! Shouting doesn't make it right, and in this case you are wrong. Apparently you object to the Shield spell in its entirety since it allows precisely this and not just with regard to surprise, but any attack. Riddle me this, oh genius: If a wizard is in combat with several foes, some of which are invisible and silenced. Can he cast Shield to defend against an attack from one of the invisible creatures? By your stance, he "wouldn't see it coming" either, but the rules definitely allow it. I can think of more than a few narratives that would work in that situation to boot. Someone here doesn't understand the rules...but it isn't me. Edit: This post was a little harsher than I intended. I really don't think either method is bad or wrong. It's just you seem to be taking a very adversarial "You are wrong!" approach that bugged me. I've left the text as originally posted because I don't believe in revisionist history, but wanted to add that I think we can agree to disagree. I will no longer argue the point. Suffice to say I am certain that the way I have chosen is the way I will continue to play as my group has already agreed on it...even the assassin. [/QUOTE]

Verification