Is "Shield" too powerful?

[KarinsDad]

Closing your eyes just grants me combat advantage.

Actually, when you post something silly, yes, I do tend to ignore it because I know about your hyperbole snowball effect.


With regard to Hit the Dirt and Shield.

Hit the Dirt:

1) Is 22nd level.

2) It affects all defenses.

3) It only affects area and close attacks.

4) It only works if the PC can get far enough away. Nothing in the rules indicates that the PC knows what the area of an enemy effect actually is. According to the rules, the DM can run it either way (the player knowing the area or the player not knowing the area) since the rules are silent on this issue.


Shield:

1) Is 2nd level.

2) It affects AC and Reflex.

3) It affects any type of attack (area, range, close, melee).

4) It only works if the attack is within 4.

#2 is advantage HtD, #3 is advantage Shield. So, the only thing balance-wise to offset #1 is #4. One could run HtD where the player knows the area of the attack and run Shield where the player does not know the die total and it would be totally balanced since HtD is 20 levels higher than Shield.

Hence, your conclusion is faulty, regardless of your over the top hyperbole of insanity (and your hyperbole is one of the reasons I sometimes ignore your posts). This example illustrates nothing with regard to whether the DM should state out loud attack totals. In other words, your example here is a red herring to the actual rules discussion about Shield.


Let's take a rules quote instead:

You resolve an attack by comparing the total of your attack roll (1d20 + base attack bonus + attack modifiers) to the appropriate defense score. If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. Otherwise, you miss.

This quote supports my POV. It does not support the "pro-DM states attack roll out loud" POV. Why? Because "you" refers to the DM when the DM is having an NPC attack, hence, the DM compares the total, not the player (with a literal reading of this rule).

The problem with such a literal reading is that the player might then be entitled to know the defenses of any opponent he attacks. He does the attack comparison, not the DM.

Quid Pro Quo.

However, the solution to this is that one can take this interpretation literally for the DM attacking and not literally for the players attacking since the DM is not forced to run the game in a specific way (unless the rules say so). YMMV.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

God, I hate buzzwords.

 

[Leatherhead]

Assuming that monsters follow the rules in the PHB unless the rule is specifically listed as being different for monsters, or that particular monster, and because I can find no general rule in the DMG or MM that contradicts this, I would like to present this rule for consideration:

Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you've done to it, and what conditions you've imposed.

It also seems to me that in order to run smoothly, 4E requires characters to posses a higher level of metagame information than they did in previous editions.

 

[Saeviomagy]

However, the solution to this is that one can take this interpretation literally for the DM attacking and not literally for the players attacking since the DM is not forced to run the game in a specific way (unless the rules say so). YMMV.

Doesn't that one just boil down to "Rule 0 says I can"?

 

[DracoSuave]

Comparative material:

Belt of Fiends, L15 magic item

Power (Daily): Immediate Interrupt. You can use this
power when you are hit by an attack. Gain a +3
power bonus to defense against that attack; you can
decide to use the power after the DM tells you the
attack die total.

(From "Rose Keep," _Dragon_ 366, p. 43)

Draw your own conclusions.

Heh, I like how everyone seemed to miss the point of what you put up and blindly compared it to shield, as opposed to the part that you probably -meant- to showcase.

you can
decide to use the power after the DM tells you the
attack die total.

 

[Ginnel]

Heh, I like how everyone seemed to miss the point of what you put up and blindly compared it to shield, as opposed to the part that you probably -meant- to showcase.

Originally Posted by ilmoin's fundamental point
you can decide to use the power after the DM tells you the
attack die total.

[/quote]
got it in one, this sentance assumes the DM is always telling you the attack die total, the only sticking point we get now is does the DM tell you the attack roll after you decide to use the power or not.

1. DM roles monsters attack
2. DM says I rolled a 15
3. Player says hmm I have AC 13 I'll use my belt/shield/whatever to give me AC in response
4. DM says attack total is 19 haha chump now mark that power off

or case 2

1 DM rolls monster's attack
2. DM says I got a 19 total
3. Player says hmm I have 13 AC and shield only gives +4, player decides not to use power this time.
4. DM goes take 40 Gabillion damage fool!

Personally I think case 2 makes 100% more sense and its how all our current games are run, our 4th edition game the wizard hasn't used his shield even though he has been hit in several combats, the rolls either seem to miss completely or hit overwhelmingly (over +4).

 

[KarinsDad]

Doesn't that one just boil down to "Rule 0 says I can"?

Yup. Hence the reason I said YYMV. The literal reading of those rules support one POV, but at the cost of something that most DMs do not allow if it is always read literally (both for players and DMs).

 

[KarinsDad]

Heh, I like how everyone seemed to miss the point of what you put up and blindly compared it to shield, as opposed to the part that you probably -meant- to showcase.

I took it to mean that an item from Dragon can fundamentally change how players play the game (and have for over 30 years now).

 

[Shabe]

2) In the Wyatt podcasts, the players do not appear to know anything about how to play 4E. So, that cannot be used as standard game play (like you claim). He also states that he misses or he hits on occassion without stating what AC or defense he achieved.

You mean like his total was below 10 or over 20, for 1st level players it kinda makes sense.
There is no point in asking if AC 8 hits or if a natural 20 hits, it really grates on a player if you do, trust me I have a DM who keeps saying does AC 30+ hit, I look at my AC 19 and go er yes. If anyone has a problem with whether it hits they just pipe and say are you sure my blargh AC is X (whether the dm said it would miss when it wouldn't or would hit when it wouldn't).

You can take a poll to ask how many DMs have PCs defenses written down, how many ask their players what their defenses are, and how many call out their to hit total and ask if it hits. I suspect the latter will be a very small percentage.

Cool i'll make the poll, all the DMs i know including me ask does X hit Y defence, like previously in 3e where we all said does X hit AC/touch AC/flat footed AC/incorporial touch AC.

 

[PHGraves]

I've been satisfied with Beguiling Tongue.

Now there's a use for it I overlooked.