Is "Shield" too powerful?

[Nifft]

"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.

This.

It would be annoying if players were required to tell the DM what AC they hit, while the DM was allowed to keep such information secret. This would give a monster with the Wizard template an advantage over a PC of the Wizard class.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fedifensor]

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

There are lots of utility powers in the game system that do guarantee success. Cure Light Wounds will always heal. No Opening always cancels combat advantage. Unbalancing Parry always slides an attacker and provides combat advantage. Your statement sounds nice, but proves nothing.

Feel free to take a listen to one of the Penny Arcane/PvP podcasts, and then tell me that James Wyatt is running the game wrong. That example of play speaks louder than anything you (or I, for that matter) have said.

 

[KarinsDad]

It would be annoying if players were required to tell the DM what AC they hit, while the DM was allowed to keep such information secret.

Annoying to who exactly? And why annoying?

This would give a monster with the Wizard template an advantage over a PC of the Wizard class.

A monster with the Wizard template already has advantages. +6 hit points per level instead of +4.

Plus, the monster gets to use the Shield power once, maybe twice if it survives the first encounter.

The player gets to use it many times.

 

[Nifft]

He spends his power and hopes for the best. Why should shield be any different?

So the Ranger has to declare his use of Roll With It before he learns the area of an attack? That seems crazy to me. (And if he gets to know the area, it seems asymmetrical punishment for the Wizard.)

Some powers say you must use them when you are attacked: then you must declare use before you know if you're hit.

Some powers allow you to react to a hit (not interrupt it).

When a rare power allows you to interrupt a hit, you ought to get use out of it. To do otherwise is just to discourage your players from using those Interrupt powers.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Annoying to who exactly? And why annoying?

Because unnecessary information asymmetry is annoying. Your way of playing means the DM can't query the player to determine if an attack hits. It also means you must insert a "dead step" (where no response is expected) between attack and damage rolling to allow your player to decide if he wants to use his interrupt power.

It's annoying to the DM, whose job has gotten bigger.
It's annoying to the player, who must work with less information.

A monster with the Wizard template already has advantages. +6 hit points per level instead of +4.

Plus, the monster gets to use the Shield power once, maybe twice if it survives the first encounter.

Player vs. Monster, the monster gets to use it the exact same number of times -- if the player fights the monster twice, the player gets two uses, the monster gets two uses.

The monster gets better use out of the same power due to an artificially created information asymmetry.

Cheers, -- N

 

[KarinsDad]

There are lots of utility powers in the game system that do guarantee success.

But, Shield is not explicitly one of them. In fact, it falls into the bonus or penalty type utility power which for the rest of them, do not guarantee results. Again, what is so special about Shield?

If you actually look at utility powers, about 1/4 (more or less) guarantee results, 1/4 guarantee partial results, and 1/2 do not guarantee anything (because they give bonuses or penalities or some other ability that may or may not affect the current in game situation).

Feel free to take a listen to one of the Penny Arcane/PvP podcasts, and then tell me that James Wyatt is running the game wrong. That example of play speaks louder than anything you (or I, for that matter) have said.

He is entitled to run it anyway he wants. Personally, I prefer to follow the rules and not add in sly little hidden house rules.

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam means nothing in a rules discussion outside of what is officially written.

 

[KarinsDad]

Because unnecessary information asymmetry is annoying. Your way of playing means the DM can't query the player to determine if an attack hits.

This is important why? Why is slowing up the game to ask the PC's defense a lot a GOOD way to play?

And, my way does not preclude the DM asking the player his defense. It precludes the player asking the DM "How much was I hit by?".

It also means you must insert a "dead step" (where no response is expected) between attack and damage rolling to allow your player to decide if he wants to use his interrupt power.

This happens anyway, even with your preferred set of rules. The player has to take out the time to make the decision anyway (a minor attack early in the encounter might or might not be important to block).

It's annoying to the DM, whose job has gotten bigger.

Funny. That is not annoying to my DM who keeps track of PC defenses all of the time and has since day one. I could see where a given DM does not want to know the defenses of his players, but that wastes game time asking.

Which is annoying.

It's annoying to the player, who must work with less information.

A matter of opinion. The poor entitled player does not know everything. boo hoo

Player vs. Monster, the monster gets to use it the exact same number of times -- if the player fights the monster twice, the player gets two uses, the monster gets two uses.

The monster gets better use out of the same power due to an artificially created information asymmetry.

This corner case is mostly irrelevent to the conversation. The number of Wizard template monsters is extremely low in most campaigns. The Wizard gets to use Shield hundreds of times. The monsters in most campaigns hardly get to use it at all.

This is hardly a serious advantage for the monsters (who btw don't care anyway). And, it assumes that the DM takes advantage of this metagaming information for his monsters.

You seem to be picking at very small straws here.

 

[Nifft]

This is important why? Why is slowing up the game to ask the PC's defense a lot a GOOD way to play?

And, my way does not preclude the DM asking the player his defense. It precludes the player asking the DM "How much was I hit by?".

(...)

This happens anyway, even with your preferred set of rules. The player has to take out the time to make the decision anyway (a minor attack early in the encounter might or might not be important to block).

Make up your mind: is it "slowing up the game" or does it "happen anyway"? The fact that you think both at the same time makes me question whether you understand the process. Would you mind running down what you think happens in the normal (not your) style of play?

Funny. That is not annoying to my DM who keeps track of PC defenses all of the time and has since day one. I could see where a given DM does not want to know the defenses of his players, but that wastes game time asking.

Which is annoying.

I refer you to your earlier assertion that the time waste happens anyway, and once more question your grasp on game flow.

This corner case is mostly irrelevent to the conversation. (...) You seem to be picking at very small straws here.

You think that an exact parallel is a corner case? Or are you trying to assert that Shield is the ONLY Interrupt power that a monster might use which relies on knowing something that you wouldn't give PCs comparable access to?

In either case, you're quite blatantly wrong.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fedifensor]

He is entitled to run it anyway he wants. Personally, I prefer to follow the rules and not add in sly little hidden house rules.

That's absolutely hilarious. The DMG specifically talks about informing players, and now you infer that its primary writer is a sly little cheat when he's DMing a game designed to showcase the rules (which is one of the reasons they did a podcast). Classy.

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam means nothing in a rules discussion outside of what is officially written.

It is written - you just refuse to read it that way.

 

[KarinsDad]

It is written - you just refuse to read it that way.

It says nothing of the sort that players get metagaming information.

That is your inference.