Is "Shield" too powerful?

[KarinsDad]

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.)

Are you talking about Hit the Dirt?

Comparing the utility of a 22nd level Utility power with a 2nd level Utility power?

Don't you think that a 22nd level Utility SHOULD have a lot more utility than a 2nd level Utility power?

And of course, where exactly does it state that the Ranger knows the area of an area effect power used against him?

 

[Fedifensor]

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

That is your inference.

You're still ignoring the fact that the lead DMG designer showcased this in a podcast on the official site as an example of how to play. Really, if you can't accept that, I don't see why we're continuing this conversation. But, if you want quotes:

Instead, use such statistics, along with your knowledge of the scene, to help your narration. If 26 is barely a hit, but the 31 points of damage is a bad wound for the enemy, say: “You swing wildly, and the dragonborn brings his shield up just a second too late. Arrgh! Your blade catches him along the jaw, drawing a deep gash. He staggers!”

Presto! You say no numbers, but the player still get the idea that his 26 versus AC barely hits. If the situation is reversed, he knows enough to use his Shield utility power.

As for examples of metagaming knowledge:

Magic Items: Speaking of magic items, when the characters get over their fear of the lightning-charged magic sword and pick it up, tell them what it is and what it does after they’ve examined it over the course of a short rest (see page 263 of the Player’s Handbook). It’s not fun to make characters guess what a magic item is or try to use a magic item without knowing its capabilities.

I think that's about as clear-cut as you can get that players are being given metagaming knowledge.

Finally, one last quote, with the relevant portion underlined:

Game States, Conditions, and Effects: Since PC abilities can sometimes hinge on a game state, condition, or effect that affects their opponent, make it clear to the players how their enemies are doing. Be descriptive, considering the source of the condition, but also be explicit.

 

[FadedC]

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.)

You know I kept looking for the Roll with it power and I can't find it. How is it worded? If it's a response to an attack or a hit then presumably you'd get to see the area of the spell that was hitting you. Not sure how this realated to what we are talking about.

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

Yep these, powers are much weaker because you might use them on an attack that would miss you anyway.

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.

These powers are already much stronger because you don't have to worry about wasting them on attacks that would have missed anyway. Why do you feel the need to make them even stronger then they already are? When the halfling wants to use his halfling reroll power do you roll ahead the 2nd attack ahead of time and tell him if it would miss or not? Because both of these react to powers that hit you.

 

[FadedC]

"Originally Posted by DMG page 26
Game States, Conditions, and Effects: Since PC abilities can sometimes hinge on a game state, condition, or effect that affects their opponent, make it clear to the players how their enemies are doing. Be descriptive, considering the source of the condition, but also be explicit."

How much you hit by is not a game state, effect, or condition. These are things like being slowed, being bloodied, or taking 2d6 damage if you leave your space.

 

[Fedifensor]

FadedC - You missed the first quote of my previous post, under narration.

 

[FadedC]

FadedC - You missed the first quote of my previous post, under narration.

To be honest I did miss that, but it doesn't change my opinion. First off it's hard to imagine that a section on narration is intended to effect game balance or rules arbitration. That would seem to be purely related to game flavor, much like the flavor text of powers (which wizards has already ruled should not be taken to effect rules at all). Secondly, IMO narration is something that occurs once the final attack has been resolved and as long as the wizard still has the option to cast shield, he has not in fact been hit at all. He is simply "about to be hit" from a narrative perspective.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Whenever I see a thread, post or webpage that runs along the theme of "laugh at players who screwed up", it constantly amazes me how often the player's "screw ups" are clearly caused by the DM failing to communicate important information about how the world the players are in works.

The world works how the rules say it works. If your narration deviates from the mechanics significantly, then it destroys any sort of immersion you're trying to build.

If your players have to ask you what your descriptive text means in rules terms, then I would be forced to say that your description was inadequate at best.

FadedC - you made a point that narration shouldn't effect rules at all: aren't you making the case that 'logically, the character couldn't know until the attack is resolved". That sounds awfully like the narrative is interfering with the mechanic.

For a wizard with shield, I'd be perfectly happy to tell him when an attack hits reflex or ac, and I'd be perfectly happy telling him how many points it hits by. In my opinion, that is no more powerful than him being able to move to anywhere on the battlefield that he chooses (which is effectively what expeditious retreat does).

 

[Nifft]

Are you talking about Hit the Dirt?

Comparing the utility of a 22nd level Utility power with a 2nd level Utility power?

Don't you think that a 22nd level Utility SHOULD have a lot more utility than a 2nd level Utility power?

And of course, where exactly does it state that the Ranger knows the area of an area effect power used against him?

Yes, Hit the Dirt. Thanks.

Are you now claiming that the basic flow of the game -- like telling a player what an attack roll was -- should vary with level? That would be insane.

If you work to conceal information from one PC, are you also going to work to conceal similarly useful information from every other PC?

You know I kept looking for the Roll with it power and I can't find it. How is it worded? If it's a response to an attack or a hit then presumably you'd get to see the area of the spell that was hitting you. Not sure how this realated to what we are talking about.

It's actually Hit the Dirt, and it's related because you get a fixed movement in response to being hit by an attack. If you're going to go out of your way to keep information from the Wizard, will you do the same for the Ranger, to ensure he sometimes wastes his powers?

These powers are already much stronger because you don't have to worry about wasting them on attacks that would have missed anyway. Why do you feel the need to make them even stronger then they already are? When the halfling wants to use his halfling reroll power do you roll ahead the 2nd attack ahead of time and tell him if it would miss or not? Because both of these react to powers that hit you.

The Halfling racial ability has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it compares quite favorably to Shield. There are some situations where Shield is better (i.e. you've been hit by exactly 1-3 more than your AC), but usually more situations where the Halfling ability is better. Remember: Halflings can negate a crit. The Wizard power can't do anything about a natural 20.

All the Wizard can do is negate a normal hit. IMHO it's not too strong to let him do exactly that.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Yesterday in our game, I used the Shield spell.

It stopped the attack.

A moment later, I got attacked again.

That sounds a bit too convenient for me, especially coming from the guy who asserts he doesn't know what he's being attacked with or how good the roll is. Your entitlement speech fell on deaf ears, too.

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.

Ah, ok. You can still move with your own move action, though. So I don't really see where it's being wasted.

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.

Ugh. "Sometimes fail to work" isn't the same thing as "has absolutely zero chance of success". If I miss an attack, it's because I rolled badly, it's not because I didn't correctly guess which of my four defenses was being targeted by an enemy.

If an attack isn't going after my armor (AC), and it's not going after my dodging ability (Reflex), that leaves two things: my body itself (Fort) and my mind (Will). I think it's pretty darn reasonable to assume a person (specifically, an adventurer) can tell how an attack affects them.

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.

That's so you can activate the power any time you're attacked and you want that +4 AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn. Not so the DM can say "I got you good, you jerk! HA!"

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.

Yeah...that was really great. Arguing a stance at this point is utterly futile, so I'm in it for the lulz now. Carry on.

 

[KarinsDad]

You're still ignoring the fact that the lead DMG designer showcased this in a podcast on the official site as an example of how to play. Really, if you can't accept that, I don't see why we're continuing this conversation.

I kept ignoring it because it is irrelevant. If I must prove it to you, ...

1) The June 2008 podcast where David Noonan DMs, he never does what you claim. He asks players what the AC is of their PCs are and even says that he will be asking this question every 10 seconds or so.

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.

3) On the Chris Perkins podcasts, he does what David Noonan does and what James Wyatt does. He appears to change around. This is also a session with players that do not know 4E.

Different DM strokes for different WotC designers. It also seems that the DMs are doing it this way because they are training and because they are not familiar with the PCs defenses.

Your point is here is not rules and is basically irrelevant to the rules discussion. It's DM preference. Even WotC designers DM differently and they sometimes even DM differently based on what they roll on the dice.


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.