You asserted that Shield must be declared before the attack is resolved. I posted the text that shows your wrong. Are you now conceding the point?And again, we are not speaking about the mechanics in this thread but about the fact the fiction.
And how is this any different from what @AbdulAlhazred and I posted about resolving forced movement in 4e D&D?Moreover, in 5e (and actually in all editions), being "hit" is just mechanics, it does not mean that you have been physically hit, and even less physically wounded. If the Shield spell increases your AC so that you are technically not hit, it's even before the action has been resolved and even less described.
4e is very clear that hit point recovery is not limited to "closing wounds". No one supposes that a warlord talking to a companion closes that person's wounds. It gives them the resolve to continue in spite of those wounds.And again, it does not mean healing them. Once more, I like Warlords, I just find that the martial powers should be confined to, well marital things, in particular not like closing wounds, because it does not match what the fiction of the genre shows.
I'm also bemused by the fact that you conjure up a technical definition of "hit" to explain away the 5e Shield spell, while rely on a very literal meaning of "healing" that is expressly contradicted by the stipulative definitions found in the 4e rulebook.
No they're not. Paladins whose strength flows from their dedication (CHA) rather than their physical prowess (STR) are part of the same conception of the fantastic - a broadly romantic one, like LotR or Arthurian tales - as battle captains who rouse their companions with inspiring words.These are completely different subjects.
There are reasonable bases on which to criticise this conception - eg it is sentimental, and doesn't really engage with the brutality of combat - but it's clearly coherent. And 4e D&D gives mechanical voice to it.