D&D 5E My shield is invisible

[Jester David]

It might depend on the setting.

A higher magic setting, like Eberron or the Realms, setting might have visual components to magic, where your hands are wreathed in glowing light as you cast and having mage armour surrounds you in visible magical energies. A little like Doctor Strange's spells and such, where everything has lots of SFX and craziness.
A lower magic world, like Ravenloft, might be more subtle, with the casting of the spell dimming lights or causing a cool breeze but having no obvious magical effect. In that instance, shield might be invisible.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

How do people handle the Shield spell?

I have two distinct questions about it.

First, you cast it as a reaction, of course. But at what precise point? In other words, if a PC wizard has the Shield spell, does the DM just say the attack hits or misses and leaves it up to the player to guess if the Shield spell's +5 AC will help?

This is how I was running it until a player pointed out that this is unfair if monsters (NPCs) have the shield spell because the DM knows if an attack by a player hits the monster and the DM sees the roll and so can now precisely whether the NPCs' Shield spell will be effective. I had to agree with the player's logic, and changed it so I now tell the PCs whether the Shield spell will block the blow.

How do you run it?

Second, let's say a certain staff has the ability to cast the Shield spell (you know to which one I am referring, no doubt). Normally, activating a magic item is an Action. So how would this work? Is it a reaction to cast Shield out of this staff or an Action to activate it?

Trying to hide rolls from players leads to contradictions. Consider the Lucky feat, or Bardic Inspiration, which relies on players getting to see the raw roll before deciding, but not being told whether the roll succeeds. Now the attack hits and a Shield can be activated. How do you in-laws the die roll?

Conclusion: Shield decision is intended to be made after the player sees the roll. He might not know the bonus, but he does know if it's a crit.

As for how I run it from a fluff perspective: Harry Dresden-style force shield works for me.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Trying to hide rolls from players leads to contradictions. Consider the Lucky feat, or Bardic Inspiration, which relies on players getting to see the raw roll before deciding, but not being told whether the roll succeeds. Now the attack hits and a Shield can be activated. How do you in-laws the die roll?

Conclusion: Shield decision is intended to be made after the player sees the roll. He might not know the bonus, but he does know if it's a crit..

This. There are other game mechanics where numbers can be modified after the roll has been made but before the result is announced. Why not apply that to Shield, too?

Hiding rolls from the players nerfs some abilities, so if a DM wants to keep rolls secret, they should tell the players before they take a class or feat that will be affected.

 

[delericho]

First, you cast it as a reaction, of course. But at what precise point? In other words, if a PC wizard has the Shield spell, does the DM just say the attack hits or misses and leaves it up to the player to guess if the Shield spell's +5 AC will help?

I tell the player the result of the attack roll, so they get to choose knowing whether it will help or not.

Incidentally, I also allow players to decide to use Bardic Inspiration (or similar) after they know whether they've succeeded or not (contrary to RAW). Largely because I tend to let them know the target number before they roll, so they can work it out for themselves easily enough anyway. (I'm not a fan of "after you roll but before you know you succeeded" in general - I prefer either "declare before the roll" or "declare at any time".)

Second, let's say a certain staff has the ability to cast the Shield spell (you know to which one I am referring, no doubt). Normally, activating a magic item is an Action. So how would this work? Is it a reaction to cast Shield out of this staff or an Action to activate it?

Pretty sure the specific rule of the spell over-rules the general rule for items. But the item must be in-hand at the time, of course.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I wouldn't hide rolls, though I'd still question whether you can still do a reaction after the attack roll has already been done. There are plenty of scenarios where realistically a PC couldn't tell whether an attack hits him or not.
I guess I'm open to both approaches. If my players want it realistic then I will just tell them "Goblin A attacks the wizard, wanna use any reactions?" and if they say no then I do the attack roll. If my players want it easy then we won't even bother with all this, because the moment the Wizard prepares the shield spells he will just tell me "Any time an attack would hit me, I will cast shield as long as I have 1st level spell slots" and I'm like "Okay".

 

[Kalshane]

Well, the Shield spell specifically says it is triggered "when you are hit by and attack or magic missile". So deciding after you are hit is part of the spell. The question is whether the DM wants to allow the PC to know whether or not the Shield would actually negate the attack before they spend the resources. Since my group is playing in Roll20 the results are out in the open anyway, so its a moot point for us, but I haven't sensed any real unfairness (either as a player or DM) in the caster knowing whether or not its worth using Shield before they cast it.

 

[leonardoraele]

How do people handle the Shield spell?

I have two distinct questions about it.

First, you cast it as a reaction, of course. But at what precise point? In other words, if a PC wizard has the Shield spell, does the DM just say the attack hits or misses and leaves it up to the player to guess if the Shield spell's +5 AC will help?

This is how I was running it until a player pointed out that this is unfair if monsters (NPCs) have the shield spell because the DM knows if an attack by a player hits the monster and the DM sees the roll and so can now precisely whether the NPCs' Shield spell will be effective. I had to agree with the player's logic, and changed it so I now tell the PCs whether the Shield spell will block the blow.

How do you run it?

Shield works well when the DM rolls the attack openly. When the DM rolls both player and DM sees the result and knows whether the attack hits or not. However, the player must decides whether it is going to cast the spell or not before the damage roll.

Second, let's say a certain staff has the ability to cast the Shield spell (you know to which one I am referring, no doubt). Normally, activating a magic item is an Action. So how would this work? Is it a reaction to cast Shield out of this staff or an Action to activate it?

You cast it with a raction. No doubt about that, the most specific rule always apply. You cann't cast a spell in a different casting time unless the item explicitly says so.

 

[SnakeEyes097]

Two of my players have shield, and I tell them if the spell would prevent a hit or not. I don't feel it would be very fair if I withhold information and the player wastes a very limited resource (staff charge or arcane trickster so limited spell slots) on something that won't help, and would probably cause unnecessary hard feelings. For my part, I find that depending on what's happening they players don't always cast shield if it could prevent an attack anyway. They might take the hit, hoping for low damage (I use rolled damage), and then use their spell slot for whatever they have planned. They have to decide to use shield before I roll damage, however.

As far as casting shield from the staff, my interpretation is that the spell is cast normally and so allow it to be used as a reaction.

 

[MG.0]

I sometimes let players see rolls, and sometimes I don't. It depends on the situation. I am not always consistent in my behavior so as to keep players wondering why I might be hiding rolls. Sometimes there is an ominous reason which the players are unaware of and sometimes there isn't.

In my opinion, it is a mistake to include any mechanics in D&D that essentially require players to see rolls in order to use them effectively. Even though it is rarely done, it should be possible to play an entire game of D&D with the players making and seeing no rolls. A skilled DM should be all that is required.

 

[Blue]

Spell can only trigger if you hit. I'm only dealing with it right now as a player, and I'm fairly consistent regardless if the DM tells me "hit" or the actual AC. First combat last session against something I saw just eat my lightning bolt and was unfazed the DM rolled to hit and asked "Does a 21 Hit". My response was "I use shield ... and it still hits". Because I'd use shield regardless if as a player I had more knowledge.

Now, if the DM was like "you know how much you were hit by" then I'd wait for that info, but I'm a mature adult. If that's not how the DM rolls I'm not going to fudge it for the sake of a 1st level spell slot. The flip side is my DM knows this and won't worry about me doing junk like that.

As a DM I roll everything out in the open except rolls the players don't know the characters are making. So at the very least they'd see the raw die and if that translates to a hit (since it can't trigger on a miss). But I'd more likely just tell them the final.