Community

Oct 4, 2012 -- 11:34AM, WolfLordBran wrote:

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"?

Sorry to pick on this bit of text, WolfLordBran--I see other people in this thread making a similar argument, and yours is just conveniently the last one.  Anyway, I don't find this reasoning persuasive.  First, many powers offer an uncertain chance at turning a miss into a hit or vice versa (e.g., elven accuracy, second chance, etc.).  The chance at turning something from a hit to a miss or vice versa is still useful, because the (non-zero) chance of a benefit is still a benefit.  The question is whether Shield is one of these powers.  Second, Shield offers another benefit besides potentially avoiding the triggering hit: you get +4 AC / Reflex until the start of your next turn.  That would be a useful effect even if the power did nothing else.

On the second paragraph--I wasn't thinking that the solution is private die rolls.  My intended solution is for the wizard to commit to using Shield before discovering whether the attack hits.  The order of operations goes: (1) I announce that a monster is attacking the wizard.  (2) The wizard announces whether he is using Shield if the attack hits.  (3)  I resolve the monster's attack roll in public, with results announced.  (4) If the wizard announced that he will use Shield on a hit, and if the attack hits, then the wizard applies Shield.

Also, I'll repeat this question: if the developers intended the player to know that an attack hits for 4 or less, they could easily have written the power differently, such as like this: "Immediate Interrupt, trigger: an attack hits your AC / Reflex by 4 or less.  Effect: The attack misses instead, and you gain a +4 power bonus to AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn."  If that was what they meant, why did they write it the other way?

Oct 4, 2012 -- 3:01PM, CUBPHILDND wrote:

Also, I'll repeat this question: if the developers intended the player to know that an attack hits for 4 or less, they could easily have written the power differently, such as like this: "Immediate Interrupt, trigger: an attack hits your AC / Reflex by 4 or less.  Effect: The attack misses instead, and you gain a +4 power bonus to AC and Reflex until the end of your next turn."  If that was what they meant, why did they write it the other way?

Who knows? They made plenty of other wording "mistakes" that they ended up clarifying to... pretty much the same interpretation a reasonable person would determine.

Just try it the transparency way. It's not going to break anything if you do that, but even if you don't believe that, at least try it.

Oct 4, 2012 -- 3:03PM, Salla wrote:

In case the wizard wants to cast the Shield when it won't result in a hit becoming a miss.  Why he'd do this, I don't know, but hey.

Because, as he noted, there's an ongoing benefit. The wizard might be in a tight spot and want to get out, so he uses Shield without effect, just to have it up when he makes a break through several opportunity attacks. Since it's an interrupt, as you probably know but many don't, he can't use it in response to an opportunity attack.

It's wonky, sure, but then again it works well with the action economy and transparency of the game.

Oct 4, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Centauri wrote:

Just try it the transparency way. It's not going to break anything if you do that, but even if you don't believe that, at least try it.

Well, first, I don't think it's fair to call one method transparent and the other not.  As I said, the order of operations is that the wizard declares conditional use of Shield before I (transparently) resolve the attack roll.  But, second, I started out using the method where the wizard can declare Shield after knowing the attack roll, and that's our current method of play.  It seems overpowered to me, and that's supported by the folks on CharOp who think Shield is by far the best level 2 Wizard utility, even if the DM insists on a different (still transparent) order of operations.  So I've been having second thoughts.  Not about whether one method breaks the game, but rather about whether one method is more in line with other level 2 utility powers.

Oct 4, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Centauri wrote:

Oct 4, 2012 -- 3:03PM, Salla wrote:

In case the wizard wants to cast the Shield when it won't result in a hit becoming a miss.  Why he'd do this, I don't know, but hey.

Because, as he noted, there's an ongoing benefit. The wizard might be in a tight spot and want to get out, so he uses Shield without effect, just to have it up when he makes a break through several opportunity attacks. Since it's an interrupt, as you probably know but many don't, he can't use it in response to an opportunity attack.

It's wonky, sure, but then again it works well with the action economy and transparency of the game.

Yeah, this makes sense to me and is a good point.  Thanks to both Salla and Centauri for making it.

Oct 4, 2012 -- 3:55PM, CUBPHILDND wrote:

Nah, nothing to do with metagaming knowledge versus wizard skillz; the power just seems too strong (relative to other level 2 utility powers) if it's one way rather than the other.

We call it the "Get Out of Jail Free Card" at our table. Still, it's pretty situational. There's only a range of results at which it will work and its duration is quite short since you can't use it on your own turn. As well, it will only ever be used if you actually attack the wizard, so if you don't manage to do that either by choice or the way things go during the fight, that player has in fact taken on an opportunity cost for not having another power that might be more "active" than "reactive." I think it's also a perception thing - you probably don't go after the wizard all that much and when you do, bam, Shield. It can almost seem like a wasted action for the DM.

Just wait until the wizard is higher level and has Wizard's Escape (teleport out of the way of the attack) in addition to Shield. And if it's a staff wizard, he has the staff-power too. Etc.

Wizards are squishy but they're hard to hit, hard to pin down. I believe that is by design.