Is "Shield" too powerful?

[Hypersmurf]

4) Your math has another flaw. If the DM asks a player "Does a 23 hit your AC?", the DM is allowing Shield to work 100% of the time when it can on the first attack. 100% is a lot better than your 25% Second Chance math.

Those numbers are still measuring different things, though. Second Chance has the potential to make any hit a miss. Shield, with transparent attack rolls, is guaranteed to work... but only on certain hits.

25% of 100%, vs 100% of X%, means that there's a missing number if we want to seriously compare them...

-Hyp.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

The PCs know how to fight but the players don't. What they do know is how to interpret game stats. Therefore for the heroes to behave as competently as possible, the players needs as much information as possible. The less the players know, the more the heroes behave like red shirts.

Typically in my games, the PCs learn what a monster does one trick at a time. The first time the monster attack them, they learn the defense that the attacks targets, the exact bonus and the damage. Then the wizard shoots him with scorching burst and immediately learns the reflex defense. Before long, they learn the HP. They better, I always task one of the player with keeping track of the bad guys HP! Even the first time they meet a monster, learning when he becomes bloodied (which of course I state or the tiefling gets annoyed!) gives a fair approximation. When a monster of a type dies, I finnally state the exact HP so they take that into account for the next monsters of the same type. After a few round, they know pretty much everything there is to know and start acting, unsurprisingly, like very competent heroes! This further pays off because in any themed adventures, the same type of monsters will show up a bit over the day so that knowledge carries over. From that point on, they do cool things like focus on the weak defense or avoid making a direct attack against a monster they know has 4 hp left and let splash damage from another attack kill him (i.e cleave).

The end result is they tend to punch above their weight class, so to speak. And as a result I run tougher fights, I expect, than in a game where players are kept mostly in the dark about game stats.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Those numbers are still measuring different things, though. Second Chance has the potential to make any hit a miss. Shield, with transparent attack rolls, is guaranteed to work... but only on certain hits.

25% of 100%, vs 100% of X%, means that there's a missing number if we want to seriously compare them...

-Hyp.

More importantly, that power is 95% likely to cancel a critical hit. That's pretty damn good.

 

[KarinsDad]

25% of 100%, vs 100% of X%, means that there's a missing number if we want to seriously compare them...

Agreed.

1) Second Chance is only used on a successful hit. So, 100% to start with. If the attack missed, Second Chance would not be used. It also works against all attack rolls, regardless of defense, so another 100%. With a 50% chance to hit, we have an original 90% chance of a normal hit (11 to 19) and a 10% chance of a critical (20). So the average amount it protects is calculated by:

100% * 100% * (90% normal damage * (50% of a miss - 5% chance of a critical) + 10% critical damage * (50% of a miss + 45% of normal damage))

This works out to an improvement 54.5% of the time and a worsening of the situation 4.5% of the time. 41% of the time, no change. Ironically, one could distill this down to a 50% chance of improvement (for a 50% chance to hit).

These percentages are higher if the player mostly uses the power to minimize a critical, but if he does that, there are times when he won't use it in an encounter at all. Pros and Cons.

2) Shield also is only used on a successful hit. So, 100% to start with. However, Shield works differently from game to game depending on the DM's adjudication:

2a) The DM rules that the PCs do not know anything about the attack.

73% of the time, a monster will use an AC or Reflex attack (on average in the MM).

If an attack occurs with a 50% chance to hit, Shield will nullify the attack 40% of the time (4 numbers out of the 10 possible to hit numbers).

So, 100% * 73% * 40% = 29.2%

2b) The DM rules that the PCs know the type of attack (e.g. Fort or Reflex), but they nothing about the die result or total.

100% * 100% * 40% = 40%

2c) The DM rules that the PCs do not know the type of attack, but rolls the attack die in front of the players.

If the players see an 8 through a 14 or so on the die, there is a very high chance that Shield will work (not all creatures have a 50% chance to hit). If they see a 17, Shield will almost never help (although it would have once in our game). This is also dependent on how high an AC or Reflex the PC Wizard has (higher ones bump up the range some). For the most part, the player has a high chance (80% in my estimation) of guessing correctly if he can see the die roll.

100% * 73% * 80% (a guess) = 58.4%

2d) The DM rules that the PCs know the type of attack and rolls the attack die in front of the players.

100% * 100% * 80% (a guess) = 80%

2e) The DM rules that the PCs know everything (i.e. the total attack roll and the type of the attack).

100% * 100% * 100% = 100%

Granted, 2e is not a true 100%. It is just 100% of the first attack in an encounter for which Shield will definitely work.


But, the comparison of 1 and 2a does show us that worse case scenario is 29.2% for Shield versus 50% for Second Chance. What it does not show is that Shield also can be used for multiple attacks versus one for Second Chance. That ups the 29.2% somewhat, especially in situations where the Wizard has multiple foes. Even if the first use of Shield does not stop an attack, later uses in the round might.

So, doesn't 2d and 2e seem overpowered when compared to 1 considering that Second Chance cannot stop multiple attacks and Shield can?

2a and 2b seem like the most balanced adjudications.

When one also considers how frequently people take Shield as their primary second level utility power, one should consider if 2a or 2b is the more reasonable adjudication. Personally, I think 2a is more balanced, but I can see why people would pick 2b.

2e is ridiculously powerful and useful compared to Second Chance.


Note: We use 2c in our games because the DMs always roll attack dice in front of the players. The game does not feel forced or contrived or fudged if the DM is open about his attack and damage rolls. What happens, happens. No guaranteed PC survival entitlement and limited DM punishment for stupid mistakes.

I consider 2c to be reasonable and the math above pretty much illustrates that. Shield actually works out to be more useful than Second Chance with 2c, even if one changes that 80% guess.


Btw, I am old school. I think telling players nearly everything (like MM's post) is part of our recent entitlement society. People are used to seeing damage bars above foes in mmorpgs and other computer games and think that handing information out like candy is reasonable. I do not. I think there should be some mystery in the game system, or why bother to play DND instead of an mmorpg. Even the monster skill checks are way too generous in the information that can be acquired. IMO.

 

[Nightson]

You managed to prove in your shield calculations that when shield is useful it's useful. What you didn't calculate was how likely it was to be useful. When you went from 2c to 2d you changed the last number from the chance that the number is within the range to the chance that the PCs correctly guess a number already in the range, which renders 2d and 2e totally invalid compared to the first three.

 

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

Talk about "logical fallacies".

1) Shield works until the end of the Wizard's next turn. That has the potential to attempt to stop one attack or five attacks. Second Chance only has the potential to stop one attack per encounter. So, Shield is not quite as lame as you are making it out to be. When a Wizard is surrounded, Shield usually kicks butt on Second Chance.

yes, lets talk about logical fallacies shall we. You're making an argument about effectiveness based upon a situation that happens maybe 1% of the time.

Now you're talking about "potential"? What percentage of combat rounds does a wizard face 5 attacks? Not many if your wizard is planning on surviving. In the event that you get attacked 5 times while the shield spell is working the math says you'll likely impact exactly one of them. Hardly a huge difference maker. So, less than 5% of the time you get to block 1 extra attack. I'm being extremely generous here math wise because I've played a wizard and I don't remember ever facing 5 attacks in one round. My only pc that ever faced 5 attacks in one round was a 4th level warlock and he was killed that round.

In any event second chance ALSO has the 95% chance to block a crit and it blocks roughly 25% of any attack it's used against.

2) Your math is off. AC and Reflex attacks make up ~73% of the attacks in the Monster Manual. It might be 50% of the attack types, but Shield can affect a solid majority of the attacks in the game.

My math is solid, your attention to detail is off. I used the number 75% to come up with 15% effective. Here it is in a nut shell, 20% of 75% = 15%. Shield has the ability to block 15% of all attacks the wizard faces. Are you following?

3) Nothing in the game indicates that a Class power has to have the same utility as a Racial power. Halflings get screwed in several ways (especially in combat), so having a Racial power that is more effective in many circumstances than a Class power is fair and balanced.

This is another logical fallacy. Maybe two at once. I never made any reference to your point, I just mathematically disputed the argument being made that shield was more powerful than the halfling power. I clearly demonstrated it's probably only about 60% as effective and only if you're getting the full disclosure version. If you're getting the non disclosure version the halfling power is 5-15 times as effective. That's 500-1500% for the math impaired.

4) Your math has another flaw. If the DM asks a player "Does a 23 hit your AC?", the DM is allowing Shield to work 100% of the time when it can on the first attack. 100% is a lot better than your 25% Second Chance math.

You're either being purposely being obtuse or you're not capable of rational discourse. My math has no flaw, it's just your grasp of logic that's kind of broken. Anecdotal evidence doesn't make an argument and it certainly doesn't impugn my math. I fully admit that in the case where the DM asks does 23 hit your AC is where shield works. You apparently are skipping over the other 19 possibilities the DM might offer, 16 of those 19 are EXACTLY the 80% of the time where shield has no effect.

5) Wizards can easily have the highest AC and Reflex defense in the game system. Using a better version of arguably the best defensive utility spell (or at least one taken and used a significant majority of the time for those who can) for a class that is already strong in those areas is questionable. Even non-Wizards can get this power. Each DM can do what he wants, but you getting "annoyed" over someone else's opinion on it is silly. Guess your name here is well suited.

So part of your argument is that because wizards can already have high AC they should be punished? Perhaps no wizards should be allowed to use magical armor? I'm not annoyed, this is the internet, I just felt someone ought to point out the ridiculous flaws in your swiss cheese argument.

Just for your edification AngryPurpleCyclops is a joke that has to do with being a sniper serving in Somolia and nothing to do with my temperament. There aren't a lot of opportunities for "companionship". This is a pg website but I glean you and I are of a similar age so I'll assume you can figure it out. I just find it slightly funny.

Balance is a major part of the game system. If you want to run Shield as an auto-success when applicable defense in your game, fine. I consider that unfair to the other players whose powers are not automatic, but you can do what you want in your game.

I agree balance is a major part of any game system. I think my math directly contradicted your position and more importantly shows that your position unbalances shield with regard to other powers. You refusing to accept the math only supports my hypothesis that you're just interested in dominating the game/conversation not in reaching a factual conclusion. I've worked on a dozen games as a play balance professional both computer games and table top games. I'm not guessing here, I'm trying to educate you as to relative utility of powers. Shield is hardly an auto success. Anyone who has played a wizard will tell you that many combats end with it unexpended. You have no factual argument so you switch to hyperbole to deflect from the untenable nature of your position.

 

[KarinsDad]

You managed to prove in your shield calculations that when shield is useful it's useful. What you didn't calculate was how likely it was to be useful. When you went from 2c to 2d you changed the last number from the chance that the number is within the range to the chance that the PCs correctly guess a number already in the range, which renders 2d and 2e totally invalid compared to the first three.

It's useful 40% of the time a (50% chance to hit) attack hits.

But in the case of 2e, it's never used when it is not useful.

In the case of 2d, it's rarely used when it is not useful.

Hence, it is basically auto-protect for those DM situations. It's:

DM: "He hits you."
Player: "No he doesn't."

The issue is that 2e's chance to fail is 0%, not that it cannot always be used if the DM plays it that way. It is always more useful if it cannot fail when it can be used than if it possibly can fail.

There is no chance of failure for 2e, hence, 2e is more useful than 2a through 2d. There is almost no chance of failure for 2d, hence, 2d is more useful than 2a through 2c.

Can you calculate the exact amount those are better? I cannot. I just know they are a lot better than if using it can fail.

 

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

<snip>superfluous fluff</snip>
Note: We use 2c in our games because the DMs always roll attack dice in front of the players. The game does not feel forced or contrived or fudged if the DM is open about his attack and damage rolls. What happens, happens. No guaranteed PC survival entitlement and limited DM punishment for stupid mistakes.

This is mostly opinion and everyone is free to do in their campaign as they see fit. It's one of the best things about DnD. Take what works for you and roll with it. Presenting your way as the only way and supporting it with nonsensical arguments is a different story. Your hyperbole about "entitlement" is just you trying to impugn people who have a different perspective. This is the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem.

I shudder to think that you challenged my math and then presented this tripe.

I consider 2c to be reasonable and the math above pretty much illustrates that. Shield actually works out to be more useful than Second Chance with 2c, even if one changes that 80% guess.

Your math is scary. You're not even coming close to comparing two similar things.

Btw, I am old school. I think telling players nearly everything (like MM's post) is part of our recent entitlement society. People are used to seeing damage bars above foes in mmorpgs and other computer games and think that handing information out like candy is reasonable. I do not. I think there should be some mystery in the game system, or why bother to play DND instead of an mmorpg. Even the monster skill checks are way too generous in the information that can be acquired. IMO.

More hyperbole designed to deflect and impugn. I'm old school as well. My gaming group is anything but "entitlement" centric. We play a very gritty brand of DnD where death is ever present and TPK is a real possibility. We don't get a lot of magic items, the items we get are not particularly powerful and we approach the numerous plot lines we are presented pretty cautiously. 4e is clearly designed with the expectation that players will know when monsters are bloodied and by extension monsters know when characters are bloodied as well. The information we have in our group about defenses is only what we glean from character hits and misses. I would argue that the campaign I play in is about as far from "entitlement" or monty hall as possible.

You can spin the defense of your position with any fluff you like but that doesn't distract from the reality that you are married to your ideas even when presented with well supported arguments that contradict your baseless supposition.

 

[KarinsDad]

yes, lets talk about logical fallacies shall we. You're making an argument about effectiveness based upon a situation that happens maybe 1% of the time.

Now you're talking about "potential"? What percentage of combat rounds does a wizard face 5 attacks?

That was hyperbole. I assumed you would get it. My bad.

5 attacks will not often happen. But, 2 attacks can. It's easy in the game system. Even a Dragon can attack a Wizard 2 or more times in a single round without having other NPCs around to help it.

I know our DM will send 2 or more attackers against the Wizard if he gets the chance, especially once the Wizard starts laying the smack down.

I agree balance is a major part of any game system. I think my math directly contradicted your position and more importantly shows that your position unbalances shield with regard to other powers. You refusing to accept the math only supports my hypothesis that you're just interested in dominating the game/conversation not in reaching a factual conclusion. I've worked on a dozen games as a play balance professional both computer games and table top games. I'm not guessing here, I'm trying to educate you as to relative utility of powers. Shield is hardly an auto success. Anyone who has played a wizard will tell you that many combats end with it unexpended. You have no factual argument so you switch to hyperbole to deflect from the untenable nature of your position.

Shield is an auto success if the DM uses 2e above. Once per encounter when it can be successful, it will be successful if the player wants to use it.

You appear to be arguing to argue and stating that I am either purposely being obtuse or not capable of rational discourse is attacking just to attack. The last recourse of irrational discourse.


Look at the math behind my numbers 1 and 2a through 2e above and explain any flaws you find in them.

They illustrate how Shield is considerably better than Second Chance if the DM gives out too much information.


As an example of how your math is irrelevant, your 25% Second Chance calcuation is totally accurate. It's just mostly meaningless.

"The halfling can therefore impact 50% of 50% of attacks. This is a 25% overall effectiveness for the halfling power."

Who cares? The halfling does not get hit on 50% of attacks, so Second Chance is not used. It is only relevant when it is used. It is only used when an attack hits. So your math here, although accurate, doesn't say anything important.

What is important is that 54.5% of the time when Second Wind is used, it decreases the amount of damage, 4.5% of the time it increases the amount of damage, and 41% of the time it does nothing (assuming a 50% to hit chance).

Your math might be accurate, but if it doesn't address the real issues, what good is it?


One more point you forgot in your discourse. Shield either stops the damage or it does not. 4.5% of the time, Second Wind increases the damage (upping normal damage to a critical, you mentioned this, but blew it off). 4.5% of the time, Second Wind decreases the damage but does not stop it completely (i.e. dropping a critical down to normal damage, you did not mention this).

Unlike Shield, Second Wind does not always cut out the damage completely. It only does that 44.5% of the time.

Yet another reason why Shield is usually better.

Average damage if Second Wind changes the result ~12%.
Average damage if Shield changes the result 0%.

 

[KarinsDad]

You can spin the defense of your position with any fluff you like but that doesn't distract from the reality that you are married to your ideas even when presented with well supported arguments that contradict your baseless supposition.

Whatever.

Prove your point.

You did not disprove my math, you just yelled about it.

Put down real math, not that pseudo math you wrote before.

Prove 1 and 2a through 2e are flawed, or walk away with your tail between your legs.

I've already illustrated how your 25% is accurate, but meaningless. Prove me wrong.

Show real math to illustrate average damage under 1, and 2a through 2e.

I'll wait.

So far, your pseudo math is lacking.

The proof is in the pudding. Give an example of average damage for each of the cases I layed out if you want to prove your point.

You are aware that you too could be in error and "married to your ideas".

Do the math instead of the hyperbole.


Average damage is the key to this. It makes or breaks these types of math arguments. Remember, neither of these defenses trigger unless an attack hits, so you must start with a case of the attack hits. Anything else is blowing smoke.

If you cannot do it, we'll all pretty much assume you are mistaken.