Shield Spell

[hong]

In the PHB it says the Shield spell provides cover. The Sage is saying that the spell provides a cover bonus to AC. A subtle though significant distinction. Accordingly, the Shield spell would provide a +7 to AC, but would not confer the bonus to reflex saves nor the immunity to AoO inherent to 3/4 cover.

Context is important. The Sage gave this answer in response to a question on what sort of AC bonus the shield spell provides -- in particular, whether it stacks with normal armour. The question wasn't about the other bonuses provided by the spell, so naturally the Sage didn't mention them. See p.35 of the D&D FAQ, somewhere on the Wizards site.

 

[Darklone]

FAQ

There are three different FAQ sets... and in more than one the sage answered directly if a shield spell helps against AoOs and he said no.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

2Darklone: Many people seem to ignore this skill. A great mistake, and maybe the reason for many to believe a bard might be underpowered. (Be aware that a bard can even get a WAND of this spell - and many other, even nastier ones... A Bard can make this time of the job similar to the wizard... )

 

[hong]

Re: FAQ

There are three different FAQ sets... and in more than one the sage answered directly if a shield spell helps against AoOs and he said no.

The point under discussion here is whether shield provides a bonus to Ref saves. This has never been in dispute, nor has the Sage ever said it doesn't, as far as I recall. The protection against AoOs is something else entirely.

 

[dcollins]

Re: FAQ

There are three different FAQ sets... and in more than one the sage answered directly if a shield spell helps against AoOs and he said no.

Frankly, I really think you're mistaken here. Yes, the Sage in Dragon magazine (reportedly #282) absolutely said that shield was "going to be changed" so that it only gave a cover bonus to AC and no other benefits. No, this change never actually made it into any errata or version of the Official D&D FAQ that I've ever seen.

 

[Uller]

Re: Re: FAQ

Frankly, I really think you're mistaken here. Yes, the Sage in Dragon magazine (reportedly #282) absolutely said that shield was "going to be changed" so that it only gave a cover bonus to AC and no other benefits. No, this change never actually made it into any errata or version of the Official D&D FAQ that I've ever seen.

I have yet to see an "official" errata or clarification of the spell that takes away the +3 ref save or the AoO protection. The Sage said no AoO protection from the spell, mentioned specifically that you get +7 bonus to AC, but never mentioned whether or not you get the +3 bonus to Ref Saves versus area effect spells.

I take the sage as semi-official advice and I agree that negating AoOs seems a bit much. Clearly the spell was intended to give a +7 cover bonus to AC. The +3 save bonus is specifically mentioned in the spell description, so as far as I'm concerned, the spell gives a +7 cover bonus to AC, a +3 cover bonus to Ref saves and nothing more. (which falls right in line with "When in doubt, if the spell description doesn't SAY that a spell does something, then it probably doesn't"). A +3 ref save bonus makes the spell a cool way for wizards to protect themselves from area effect spells. I can't think of any other spell that also does this, so why not? It doesn't seem unbalancing to me.

 

[Mahali]

You can stop arguing about AoO and Shield because the description says "and does not negate attacks of opportunity against you."

Dragon #282 the Sage said does not provide cover. +7 AC (named)"Cover bonus" and stops magic missles.

Now the question is Sage official if it's not in an errata?

No DMs I know let the shield spell provide cover for reflex saves because it is way to powerful then. The spell is almost reason enough to pick up a level of Sor.

 

[Geoff Watson]

You can stop arguing about AoO and Shield because the description says "and does not negate attacks of opportunity against you."
Where does it say that?
I re-read the spell and it doesn't mention AoOs either way.

Dragon #282 the Sage said does not provide cover. +7 AC (named)"Cover bonus" and stops magic missles.
Now the question is Sage official if it's not in an errata?

Which directly contradicts Dragon 280 Sage Advice. (Which had the detailed explanation of Shield spells and Tower sheilds.)

I wish he could make up his mind.

Geoff.

 

[Mahali]

It says it P 251 PHB. I checked the corrections and clarifications and it hasn't changed.

Shield
Abjuration [Force]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 minute/level (D)
Shield creates an invisible, mobile disk of
force that hovers in front of you. It negates
magic missile attacks directed at you. The
disk also intercepts attacks, providing a +7
cover bonus to to AC. Despite this bonus a
shield spell does provide actual cover

and does not negate attacks of opportunity
against you.

The disk protects you only
against magic missiles and attacks from one
direction. You designate half the
battlefield (with yourself on the dividing
line) as being blocked by the shield. The
other half is not. You can change the
defensive direction of the shield (that is,
rotate the dividing line) once as a free
action on each of your turns.

Edit: P.S. What was the question and answer in Dragon 280?

 

[Hypersmurf]

It says it P 251 PHB. I checked the corrections and clarifications and it hasn't changed.

Well, that's completely different to the spell description in my first-printing PHB, so it has changed...

-Hyp.