Is "Shield" too powerful?

[FadedC]

Thanks for the explanation, Stalker0. I see what you're saying now.

Perhaps Jump ought to be a minor action spell that grants a free move action in the form of a jump? (As opposed to a move action spell that does the same, if I understand you.)
Agreed. YMMV, KD, but I find it too antagonistic, as a DM, not to give my players the information they need to use their powers properly. Any "ineffectiveness" by Shield ought to come from the spell being ineffective against Fortitude and Will attacks, and not from the DM saying "Gotcha!", IMO.

This brings us back to the main topic; assuming disclosure of attack rolls by the DM, is Shield too effective? I'm beginning to learn towards "No".

Actually if you do disclose attack rolls I think shield is a bit too effective. Then it's pretty much guaranteed to turn one hit into a miss (because there will always be an attack that hits by 4 or less), once per encounter as well as giving you a large ac bonus for the rest of the round and that's a bit too good. Certainly way better then say the halfling reroll ability or any reactive defense a fighter gets.

Given that there is absolutely nothing to support disclosing attack rolls though I think shield is fine. Sure there is a risk you will use it and it won't help, but that's true of every power that boosts your ac for a round or forces an enemy to reroll an attack. That's what balances it against other abilities. It will work about half the time, same as the halflings reroll or other similar powers.

Though I guess it still better then a lot of those other powers because it gives you a 50%-ish chance to avoid an attack AND it gives you a huge defence boost for the rest of the round.

 

[Henry]

But usually the utility I pick is the one I want from that list, so its not really a new choice. I mean if some utility powers started failing at high levels and others started picking up, the sure that would be useful. But if I pick shield from the list, it means I want shield more than the other utilities, so the ability to change is just the ability for me to have the option to choose something I don't want.

However, there's one other situation -- new powers entering the game. Many groups add Dragon mags & splatbooks, so if Rary's Lesser Mnemonic Enhancer becomes available, the retraining lets you take care of that quickly without retooling the character too much.

 

[brehobit]

I feel that as a 4e DM it is appropriate to let the wizard know whether his shield spell is usable or useless against a particular strike if he asks me.

Cheers

And I didn't. I roll the dice in the open, so they have an idea. But that's it. I think that makes it too powerful (same with the staff power).

 

[Fedifensor]

Nonsense.

Being spoon fed the answer by the DM all of the time is not fun. If I make a mistake as a player, that's ok. It's not "less fun".

How is giving a PC the info of whether a power will be useful "spoon-feeding"? There will be several attacks against a PC's defenses over an encounter. Even if a PC knows that shield will make the difference against an attack, it may be better to wait and use it later (perhaps when the dragon's breath weapon recharges).

And, the DMG did not state what you claim it states. It limits information to PC knowledge, not player knowledge.

They are two different sets of knowledge.

Yes, they are. But all PCs are experienced with battle, and the only way to show that experience is for the DM to pass along information. If someone swings a weapon at me, I can generally tell if it's going to hit or miss as the blow is coming in...and I have nothing close to the combat experience of even a novice adventurer.

Are you claiming that the PC KNOWS every single time which defense enemy attacks use before the affects of the power are applied? Where is this in the rules? Where is it in the rules that PCs know what defenses even are?

Again, look at the power:

Trigger: You are hit by an attack

Once an attack hits, yes, you know which defense was attacked...because that defense was hit. And since Shield is an interrupt, it can change that hit to a miss before damage is applied.

Furthermore, I've cited where the DMG states that players should be informed. It's your turn - tell me where it is in the rules that PCs don't know which defense is attacked or what defenses are.

Yes, players know their HP scores. PCs do not.

Prove it. You keep staying that the rules don't say X...which regardless of whether you are correct, doesn't prove the statement that X is false. A character may not know HP scores by that name, but to say an experienced fighter doesn't know their combat capabilities and when they're reaching abilities is (to use a term you have been using frequently) nonsense.

Again, nonsense.

There's that word again. I do not think it means what you think it means...

The game does not need to be played your way to be fun.

You mean the way where I empower players instead of restrict them? Hey, if your group is happy with your method, more power to you. But if I run a 4E game (especially if it is in a shared game environment like Living Forgotten Realms), I'm going to go by my interpretation of what the rulebook says, unless I have an agreement with the players to use house rules. The DMG says to inform players, and that's what I'm going to do.

And, you are the one who pulled out the DMG rule and then start saying "rules-lawyering" when somebody disagrees with your interpretation.

People kept debating about whether you should tell people what AC was hit. I pointed to the relevant rule to help people decide how to resolve the situation in a game. The lawyering part comes in when a person points to an ambiguous section of the rules and states that it only has one interpretation - theirs.

But, this does not apply to the Shield mechanics.

Knowing that one is lucky to be missed says nothing about how unlucky one was to "just barely be hit". Apples and oranges comparison and has nothing to do with the rules discussion here on how Shield works.

The base rules for Shield are clear - it's an interrupt that works on a hit, that can adjust AC and Reflex up by 4 to turn that hit into a miss. You brought up luck and unluck, and complained that PCs shouldn't have information about their own condition despite that very condition being an abstraction designed to promote a good gaming experience.

Regardless, we're not getting anywhere here. You're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you. So, we'll see how the players react when each of us has our turn behind the DM screen...that's the true test of whether we're right or wrong.

 

[KarinsDad]

Just as a note, expanded spellbook doesn't give you more utilities, only more daily attack powers.

Thanks for the correction. I was going to take it at 10th level, but now I won't.

I could care less about attack spells. It's utility spells that I want more of. I must have gotten confused by the short table description.

 

[Fedifensor]

And I didn't. I roll the dice in the open, so they have an idea. But that's it. I think that makes it too powerful (same with the staff power).

Wow. You think the staff power can be too powerful? Usually it's the orb power that everyone looks to as an example of being too tough...

One final point on this topic. For those that listened to the Penny Arcade/PvP game podcasts, what do you think about how James Wyatt (one of the 3 members of the 4E design team, and the primary writer for the DMG) handled attack rolls by monsters? For the benefit of those who haven't heard the podcasts - he told the players what the attack roll was, and asked if the attack hit their AC (or whatever other defense was being attacked).

 

[KarinsDad]

How is giving a PC the info of whether a power will be useful "spoon-feeding"?

Because it is not information that PCs should have. A black bolt coming from an enemy caster could be anything. Without a successful arcana check, how exactly does the PC know what it is?

Once an attack hits, yes, you know which defense was attacked...because that defense was hit.

Rules quote? Sounds like a house rule to me.

And since Shield is an interrupt, it can change that hit to miss before damage is applied.

These are metagaming rules. There is no "go back in time" for the PC. There is "go back in time and change a hit to a miss" for players.

Furthermore, I've cited where the DMG states that players should be informed. It's your turn - tell me where it is in the rules that PCs don't know which defense is attacked or what defenses are.

Therefore, within the rules of the game and the limits of PC knowledge, Insight, and Perception, tell the players everything they need to know.

Are you claiming that PCs know what Will Defense is? What hit points are? What AC is? What to hit rolls are?

These are game mechanics terms. How do the PCs know that they are PCs in a game?

You mean the way where I empower players instead of restrict them? Hey, if your group is happy with your method, more power to you. But if I run a 4E game (especially if it is in a shared game environment like Living Forgotten Realms), I'm going to go by my interpretation of what the rulebook says, unless I have an agreement with the players to use house rules. The DMG says to inform players, and that's what I'm going to do.

Again, within limitations of PC knowledge. I'm glad that for your game that you house rule expand that to game mechanics rules, but that is not what that the DMG states.

People kept debating about whether you should tell people what AC was hit. I pointed to the relevant rule to help people decide how to resolve the situation in a game. The lawyering part comes in when a person points to an ambiguous section of the rules and states that it only has one interpretation - theirs.

Like you are doing. Quit lawyering.

for tat.

The base rules for Shield are clear - it's an interrupt that works on a hit, that can adjust AC and Reflex up by 4 to turn that hit into a miss.

Yes, they are crystal clear. An interrupt on any attack with a to hit roll, regardless of whether the Shield spell affects that attack or not.

Trigger: You are hit by an attack.

The Shield spell does NOT state that it triggers on any AC or Reflex based attack, hence, it is not limited to triggering only on those types of attacks.

That is a house rule you are adding.

The trigger can be ANY attack that hits. Limiting the trigger by telling the player that the attack is not the proper type of attack is making the spell more useful than written.

By definition of the spell.

This is not rules lawyering, this is RAW.

 

[FadedC]

How is giving a PC the info of whether a power will be useful "spoon-feeding"? There will be several attacks against a PC's defenses over an encounter. Even if a PC knows that shield will make the difference against an attack, it may be better to wait and use it later (perhaps when the dragon's breath weapon recharges).

So if your ensuring the wizard only uses shield when it's useful, then you should do that with every spell or ability.

Halflings and elves who use their reroll power and fail to fail to improve their situation should get their power back. Casters should be warned when they are about to attack an enemy with a power their foe is resistant to. Classes who use a power that gives them a defense buff for a round should be warned by the DM if the mosnters aren't planning to attack him. And of course any class that ever missses with a daily or encounter power should just get it back.

Or you could just accept that powers will sometimes be used when they are not useful and that this is a part of the game.

 

[brehobit]

Wow. You think the staff power can be too powerful? Usually it's the orb power that everyone looks to as an example of being too tough...

Yeah, the orb can be twinked to a silly point. No argument. But just the orb power isn't too bad. It just shouldn't stack with anything else.

Minus that, the staff power is easily the best. +1 AC just for showing up and an implement that doubles as a weapon. Both sweet. Taking two hands can be a significant disadvantage for some builds. And played with 'full information' you get to have one attack miss per day most days (random set of choices, usually around 20-40% of all attacks that hit). That's a bit much to me.

We've had two wizards and both jumped at the staff (+1 to AC at all times= AC 18 at first level).

One final point on this topic. For those that listened to the Penny Arcade/PvP game podcasts, what do you think about how James Wyatt (one of the 3 members of the 4E design team, and the primary writer for the DMG) handled attack rolls by monsters? For the benefit of those who haven't heard the podcasts - he told the players what the attack roll was, and asked if the attack hit their AC (or whatever other defense was being attacked).

I like that, other than things like staff/shield (which frankly i think was a bad idea and one they will regret including when moving to a computer version of the game).

 

[doctorhook]

...

One final point on this topic. For those that listened to the Penny Arcade/PvP game podcasts, what do you think about how James Wyatt (one of the 3 members of the 4E design team, and the primary writer for the DMG) handled attack rolls by monsters? For the benefit of those who haven't heard the podcasts - he told the players what the attack roll was, and asked if the attack hit their AC (or whatever other defense was being attacked).

That's exactly how I do it, and I don't see any reason not to continue doing it. When I attack my players, I say, "19 vs. AC; does it hit?"

I haven't read anywhere that says I shouldn't do this (aside from in this thread).