|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 9:57AM
#1
|
|
|
The wizard's level 2 utility, Shield, is an immediate interrupt triggered by being attacked that grants the user +4 to AC and Reflex until the end of his/her next turn.
As far as I can tell, the rules as written don't dictate whether the player must know whether the incoming attack would miss if Shield were activated. My question is how I, as a DM, should let Shield work.
Right now, I perform almost all rolls in public, and I state attack modifiers, and then I ask whether the result beats the players's defenses. That means that players know exactly how much over their defense an attack roll was, and that in turn means that the wizard can choose to use Shield such that it always deflects the incoming attack.
This seems too powerful to me. Shield is already the consensus char-op pick for the wizard's level 2 utility, even without assuming that the player always knows exactly when it would deflect the triggering attack. I'm thinking instead to make my wizard tell me, before I resolve my attack roll, that he wants to activate Shield if the attack hits. This would bring it more in line with other powers that give some chance of turning failure into success (e.g., several of the racial powers, such as for halflings, elves, devas, and humans). After all, the designers could have written the power in a slightly different way to force the opposing interpretation, something like: "Trigger: an attack hits your AC or Reflex by 4 or less. Result: the attack instead misses, and you gain +4 AC / Reflex UEoNT."
What do you all think? Any advice is appreciated.
(Note, I realize there are more general threads floating around about how to deal with metagame information, but I want to follow legal precedent and not discuss more general questions unless I have to.)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:04AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Edit: I recommend forgetting about the idea of "legal precedent" at your table. What's important is what works for your game. Odds are that what will work is to err in the players' favor and make up for any imbalance in other ways, but try it and see what works for you.
My mage has had it since level 2, and never gotten to use it once. I suppose if I didn't know how much certain attacks had hit me by, I would then at least have used it, though that's a rather fake form of utility.
But no, transparency of numbers such as this is the baseline assumption. Furthermore, it's plausible to think that someone using the spell would have enough idea to know when it's needed that they don't use it otherwise. Finally, it's enough of a tactical challenge to determine if this is the attack that should be blocked (instead of something potentially more damaging later); there's no need to add a layer of complexity either by hiding rolls or forcing the player to keep track of hidden modifiers and spend time at the table deciding.
Actually, that last is probably the best argument for transparency. If you make players think about choices like that, you're just slowing down your own game. If the spell is somehow overpowered as a result, it's not likely to be by much, since it doesn't even last a whole round.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:26AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2011
|
Well, I usually keep attack rolls hidden (the players prefer it), so when I announce a hit against the wizard he can choose to use Shield - not knowing if 4+ def will save him, or not.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:47AM
#4
|
|
|
Discuss it with your players, come to an agreement, and run it that way.
In my experience most players prefer to know if their limited-use ability is going to do any good before they expend it. In other words, most players want to know if they were hit by 3 or less (so Shield blocks the hit) or by 4 or more.
However, I can certainly understand not wanting to give out perfect information, if that's the style of game you and your group prefers.
There are tons and tons of powers like this in 4e (both defensive and offensive), so it's important to get group agreement on how they will work.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:50AM
#5
|
|
|
The words from the developers is that the intent of Shield, and similar powers, is that the player knows precisely when they will and will not turn a hit into a miss.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:22AM
#6
|
|
|
The words from the developers is that the intent of Shield, and similar powers, is that the player knows precisely when they will and will not turn a hit into a miss.
Is there a source where I can verify this?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:24AM
#7
|
|
|
Not to be a jerk, but why does it matter what the D&D developers think? Run the game the way you (and your group) want to run it.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:24AM
#8
|
|
|
Edit: I recommend forgetting about the idea of "legal precedent" at your table.
I think you misunderstand what I meant by that comment. I meant that I want to decide narrowly on Shield, without my decision thereby applying broadly to all other powers that grant possible changes in outcomes. This is how judges are trained to rule: narrowly on the topic at hand rather than broadly on many possibly similar topics.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:30AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
The words from the developers is that the intent of Shield, and similar powers, is that the player knows precisely when they will and will not turn a hit into a miss.
Is there a source where I can verify this?
No. But it's pretty obvious from the design.
Edit: I recommend forgetting about the idea of "legal precedent" at your table.
I think you misunderstand what I meant by that comment. I meant that I want to decide narrowly on Shield, without my decision thereby applying broadly to all other powers that grant possible changes in outcomes. This is how judges are trained to rule: narrowly on the topic at hand rather than broadly on many possibly similar topics.
Just apply it broadly. I don't see what you think will be the problem. The game is balanced enough that running it transparently isn't going to break anything.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:34AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 26, 2009
|
Don't think of it froma DM's position. Think about it from the player's postion. Would YOU want to be in a position where you never know if one of your powers, one that's entire purpose is to protect you from a hit, is even an option? I don't want to be sitting there and hear "You are hit and take 27 damage". What I want to hear is "I got a 30 versus your AC. Does that hit?" because I can go "No, I cast Shield and it misses my 31 AC".
Besides, the game runs off the assumption that you announce attack rolls to players. If you break that assumption and do the whole "You're hit, take damage" what is there to prevent your players from doing the same to you? Why can't the Ranger say "I hit with both swings of Twin Strike. Take OneMetricCrapTonOfDamage"?
Spiteful Wizard and Voice of Reason of the House of Trolls
The Silent God of the House of Trolls
|
|
|
