New Shield Spell Questions

[JacktheRabbit]

1. Can you see the shield created by the spell if you can see invisible?

2. The shield spell description says the shield moves out of the way when the caster attacks. Does this mean if I hold my action and attack him at the same time he won't get the +7 AC bonus?

3. Would you as a DM require me to be able to see the shield ( as in question #1) before you let me make the attack described in #2?

 

[Crothian]

1) Yes, you can see anything that is invisible.

2) it would be tricky because iut depends on where the shield moves and how you are attacking. At the very least I'd reduce the cover bonus.

3) Yes, being able to see the shield would help in this case.

For most of this you're in the grey area of the rules (Welcome!! ) so take all this with a grain of salt or two.

 

[DanMcS]

1 No. "Invisible, mobile disk of *force*" implies to me that it has no physical component to see, even if you can see invisible things. It's more like, um, a telekinesis type effect, not a conjured physical shield that happens to be invisible.

2 No. It moves out of the way for the caster to attack, only just enough for his weapon/spell to pass through. It's an abjuration linked to the caster, so it's probably pretty precise. Trying to angle your sword slash at just the right angle and time to get through when it moves would probably be *harder* than just attacking past the +7 cover bonus.

3 So, um, irrelevant.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'm with DanMCS on this.

1. It's naturally invisible in the same way that an invisible stalker is so being able to see invisible won't help. Glitterdust, a net, or a bag of flower would though.

2. Dan's reasoning on this is excellent.

3. Irrelevant, considering the answer to #2

 

[Shard O'Glase]

1. no, it's naturally invisible it has no visible state to see.

2. yes. Ready acitons are made to exploit opening like this.

3. no you can't see it anyways, though I would require some reason to know what the spell was and how it functioned(spellcraft, wizard companion who explianed things), and some inteaction with the wizard with the shield spell so you oculd logically suspect it's existnce.(Your sword blow delfects away from the wizard about a foot from his body)

 

[DanMcS]

Would fine particles (flour, for example), or even something big like a net stick to the Shield? It's the same kind of stuff as a wall of force, IMO, and both of them should be pretty close to a frictionless surface. Can you climb a Wall of Force? I would guess not.

I think a standing cloud, something like a fog or rain shower, or cloud of flour dust, might reveal the location of the Shield, but I don't think they would stick to it, so if the wizard left the cloud the shield would be unseeable again.

 

[kreynolds]

What DanMcS said.

 

[mikebr99]

Can you climb a Wall of Force? I would guess not.

Climb a perfectly smooth, flat vertical surface... DC 70.

Escape through a wall of force... DC 120.

 

[Antikinesis]

The disk also intercepts attacks, providing three-quarters cover.... The disk moves out of the way when the character attacks, so it does not provide cover to opponents.

The bit about the disk moving looks like it's justifying the shield not interfering with the character's attacks. I don't believe this is sufficient basis for allowing the vision-enhanced attacker to negate the shield with a prepared action.

In-game rationalization... the attacker sees the shield moving aside for the wizard's attack, and uses his prepared action to take a swing at the wizard. Fortunately, the shield spell does it's job and moves to deflect the attack at the last moment, and still manages to clear the path for the wizard's own strike.

Makes sense to me, anyhow.

-AK

 

[Antikinesis]

1) Yes, you can see anything that is invisible.

So I guess if you can see the invisible shield, the wizard now has concealment, too.

And if the wizard can see invisible, does his shield grant his opponents concealment? (I opine in the negative, FWIW.)

-AK