Is "Shield" too powerful?

[Prestidigitalis]

KarinsDad said:

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


So don't tell the PC how close the roll was to missing -- tell the player.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

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.)

It is. Check out the new errata. =)

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".

Pretty much.

A lot of stuff over several posts

I disagree with, well, basically all of this. I don't see what is "too good" about a wizard turning an AC or Reflex hit that was a near miss into a miss once per encounter. The way to get around Shield is to attack Fort and Will, not to say "HA! I really got you good! You wasted your power!" It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that one of the requirements for Shield is that you guess whether or not it's going to be applicable. That's up to the DM, not the player.

If you were running the game and I was playing in it, I'd never in ten million years take Shield. Why? No, it's not because I want spoon feeding, it's because I want a power that does something. I'll just take Expeditious Retreat instead and shift two moves' worth of squares. Do I have to declare my movement before I can see the battle grid?

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).

This is how I started doing it, as well. It's also how the DMs on the PvP/PA podcast did it (you know, the guys that wrote 4e). I'm done with 2e and having a stack of PC stats behind my screen. I don't care what your AC is. If it hits, it hits, and if it misses, it misses. Otherwise, why bother rolling dice?

 

[KarinsDad]

If you were running the game and I was playing in it, I'd never in ten million years take Shield. Why? No, it's not because I want spoon feeding, it's because I want a power that does something.

Yesterday in our game, I used the Shield spell.

It stopped the attack.

A moment later, I got attacked again.

It stopped that attack too (Shield lasts until the end of the Wizard's next turn and I know this happened because the DM forgot that my AC was still boosted and had to be reminded).

Based on the amount of damage being done by those opponents, my Wizard was at full health instead of being 2/3rds damaged.

It does do something with the DM not telling the player if it will work or not, it just does not guarantee that like some people want it to.


Entitlement is not part of DND unless the rules state so (in a rules forum discussion). It's part of some player's expectations of DND though.

There are hundreds of powers in the game system that do not guarantee success. Why should Shield be an exception to that?

 

[doctorhook]

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.)

It is. Check out the new errata. =)

Not as a minor action, Gumph. In essence, the Wizard spends one move action casting the utility, then gets a move action to jump for free from the spell, then has a standard and minor action left. If the Wizard casts the spell on someone else, they get the free move action from the spell, plus all of their own actions.

Stalker0's point was that Jump is substantially less useful when the caster uses it on himself, because he doesn't has one fewer move action than if someone else had cast it on him. Hence the suggestion that Jump should be a minor action to cast.

 

[FadedC]

If you were running the game and I was playing in it, I'd never in ten million years take Shield. Why? No, it's not because I want spoon feeding, it's because I want a power that does something. I'll just take Expeditious Retreat instead and shift two moves' worth of squares. Do I have to declare my movement before I can see the battle grid?

So you never take powers that sometimes fail to work? I'm guessing then that you must also hate the halfling and elf reroll power (you might still miss or be hit), every power that gives you a bonus on a roll (you might still fail), and every attack power in the game (since those often miss).

I personally would be more annoyed if the DM showed favortisim towards the wizard and let him know when his power would fail, when nobody else can do that.

 

[doctorhook]

I personally would be more annoyed if the DM showed favortisim towards the wizard and let him know when his power would fail, when nobody else can do that.

I don't understand. What do you mean, "Nobody else can do that?"

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't understand. What do you mean, "Nobody else can do that?"

He means that this is something that is not done for players of other PCs.

Take the Bluff power. It explicitly states that the player rerolls before the DM announces the result. But, the reason it explicitly states this is because otherwise, people would be having the same questions on Bluff that they have on Shield.

Most of the time, the designers caught these little rules foo bars. In the case of Shield, they did not.

So, we have to determine whether Shield is an exception to the general situation where players do not know certain metagaming information shy of a skill roll or other rule.

Since Shield states "Trigger: You are hit by an attack." and does not state "Trigger: You are hit by an attack against AC or Reflex.", there is an implication here that it is any attack, not just AC or Reflex ones. There is no such limit specified. The rule as written does not prevent the trigger from firing on a Fort defense attack.

Since Shield does not state "Trigger: You are hit by an attack by 3 or less", there is an implication here that the player does not know how much the roll was made by. There is no such limit specified. In both cases, specifying the additional limitation on the trigger of the power increases the effectiveness of the Shield spell. The rule as written does not prevent the trigger from firing when the to hit was made by 6.

These possibilities of the power are not explicitly stated, but one can make the inference based on how the rest of the game is played.

Nor are their rules telling the DM to give the players metagaming information unless it is information that the PCs should have (which is rare since PCs do not know about metagaming information).

Players know some metagaming information, but as a general rule of thumb, the DM should not be handing out metagaming information for free.

As per FadedC's point, the DM does not do that for players of other PCs, why should he do it for the player of the Wizard PC?

The times that players need metagaming information, the rules should explicitly call it out.

The rules do this for bloodied. The rules do this for Marked. The rules do this for affects of powers once the power affects the PC. The rules do not do this for "how much did a roll to hit, hit by".

 

[Leatherhead]

I find the Ranger exploit Disruptive Strike to be more powerful than Shield.

But then again, it can miss, and it is higher level.

 

[Regicide]

Do I have to declare my movement before I can see the battle grid?

Depends on if your character can see or not.

With regards to shield, a lot of attacks the character may not even be able to see. He hears a bow shot from behind him and dives for cover, but doesn't know if the next thing will be the sound of an arrow clattering on stone or the sharp pain of the metal biting into his leg.

The common sense answer says no, therefore the way to rule for 4E would be yes.

 

[FadedC]

I don't understand. What do you mean, "Nobody else can do that?"

Well to add to what Karinsdad said, every class has a multitude of powers that you will frequently use and they will not turn out to help. Every attack power, every reroll power, every power that adds X to the next roll, every power that says save ends. The whole game is built around powers being unreliable.

If my priest uses his encounter power to grant an ally an extra save, he doesn't get to find out if this will result in his friend succeeding or not. He spends his power and hopes for the best. Why should shield be any different?