There were some that argued that the caster should not know the roll and should cast Shield before seeing if the spell would block the attack or not, because it was metagaming too much to know the roll.
The counter argument was that if the caster was able to cast Shield in time (the moment before impact, before damage can be rolled), then the barrier of force created by the spell would block the attack, so if the attack was going to hit anyway, the caster would not have had the chance to cast the spell in the first place before getting hit.
This brought up a question of whether Shield was a surrounding forcefield that could be broken through or if it was something more like a big floating shield made of force that positioned itself to block attacks.
It was argued for the floating shield opinion that Shield gave a bonus to AC instead of temporary hit points like the abjuration wizard archetype feature Arcane Ward, so it wasn't something destructible.
It was also argued for the floating shield opinion that the Shield spell does not protect from area effects, so it couldn't be a surrounding field that covered the body from head to toe.
The counter argument about the lack of protection from area effects was that the Shield Master feat allows a character to use a shield to defend against area effects. The counter argument was itself countered by a statement that a feat could be made to do the same for the Shield spell, and that if it takes a feat to make a worn shield or Shield spell to protect from an area effect, then neither would normally have an effect that covered the whole body at all times.
Mage Armor was mentioned as a surrounding effect that granted AC instead of temporary hit points, but that was countered by the argument that Mage Armor might surround, but it does not necessarily envelop completely from head to toe; a belt surrounds the body but it doesn't cover everything. Mage Armor probably functions more like (though not exactly like) actual worn armor, which is why it can only be cast on a creature not wearing armor.
The debate ended there. What do you all think? How do you feel about this?
Every DM can run their game as they want, but RAW and RAI seem clear. And my Diviner casts many of his Magic Missiles with a 2nd level spell slot because in SKT, too many things can almost do full wizard HP with every blow...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
I would agree with the first poster. Mechanically, in terms of how the shield spell functions, the rules are very clear.
The player can only use the shield spell when he is hit by an attack. He/she then decides whether to use shield as a reaction or not (sage advice apparently indicates that they get to see the die roll even though the spell doesn't specify this). Once shield is on it adds 5 to AC and neutralizes magic missiles until the players next turn. Direction of attack doesn't matter.
Everything else you mention is entirely fluff, it doesn't affect how the spell works, defining how people want to perceive its function won't find any hidden strengths or weaknesses. It will simply give you a way to visualize it.
The only question is whether the player gets to see the die roll before deciding to cast shield. The spell text specifically says that the player knows they have been hit. It does not say that they get to see the die roll. The sage advice response indicates that they should see the die roll. However, any DM is free to consider or ignore the information from sage advice as they wish (this is explicitly spelled out in the Adventurers League rules and any DM running their own campaign is free to decide as they wish).
Also, keep in mind that even if the player knows the die roll, this may still not also give them enough information to decide whether a shield spell will actually cause the attack to miss. The player may not know the attack bonus of the creature hitting them. Knowing the die roll does make it easier to decide but it may not guarantee the outcome. Given that spells are limited resources and a shield spell is purely defensive, I would personally play it by allowing the player to know the die roll before deciding whether to use the spell or not. However, that decision is completely up to the individual DM and could easily go either way. Arguing about fluff details of how different people visualize the spell to work can't lead to any conclusion about whether the player should know the die roll or not ... that is strictly up to how the individual DM wants to play it.
1) I agree with the Devs, the player should know if the spell is going to be useful and if they want to expense the slot on it.
2) If you don't play it this way, it's going to get super complicated. When I'm a player my DMs say "I hit AC 16 does that get you?". As a player I can say "Yes." Or "No I used my reaction to cast Shield my AV is now 18."
It's going to suddenly be a huge game of stupidly "hidden" (not hidden) information. Then, if there DM has an NPC with the Shield spell the players would have full rights to say the DM didn't get to see thier roll when attacking the enemy wizard, Because "That's how it works".
Knowing the dice roll before casting shield to me just seems odd. I don't think it would add that much time to the sequence of events either, at least not in the way I run my games.
"Monster1 is going to attacks WizardPlayer with his longsword" --If you're going to cast shield you would say so here "WizardPlayer, I rolled a 17 does that hit you, remember if I tie your AC that's a hit"? "13, oh wait I wanted to cast shield, so 18" "Sorry, you didn't say before I told you the roll -- it's a hit"
It would only take that happening once for the player to remember that, and the way I rule almost everything else that's reactionary you have to do before the roll/result is known and I'm up front with my players about that, so I don't feel bad or mean enforcing it. Things like using your inspiration die for advantage, I make them state they are using it before they know the result -- they can roll the die and see their number, then decide, but once I tell them pass or fail, the opportunity is gone.
However, I do understand the other side of this argument. A reaction is by definition taken after an action happens in response to that action. Being a reaction it can logically be argued that the action is completed (thus the roll made and known) then you react by casting shield giving you the bonus. If my players wanted it this way, I'd listen to them, and likely take a democratic approach and decide as a group what everyone thinks.
Thinking of it in terms "visually" this way if you wanted, I would say it's an instant reaction, more of an instinctual effect from your spell-casting abilities, almost like a force-field around you that takes the hit, thus protecting you. I might even describe a slight aura appears around you as the attack impacts (but generally I'd let my player decide what their "shield" looks like).
Knowing the dice roll before casting shield to me just seems odd. I don't think it would add that much time to the sequence of events either, at least not in the way I run my games.
It's not an issue of how much time is added to the sequence of events, but of how the player will view their spell choice.
I.e. the difference between "I took shield, so I can use that to avoid some attacks and help my character survive getting targeted by the bad guys." and "I will never cast shield because I can't be sure when it will work and when it will just be throwing away a spell slot I could have used for something that actually works."
And it isn't about you feeling bad or mean for the way you rule; it is about realizing that the way you rule shapes the way the players will view and play the game. In this case, whether they see reactions like shield as useful, or as too much of a gamble to really be worth it.
Also, please don't be a person that says things like "If my players wanted it this way, I'd listen to them, and likely take a democratic approach and decide as a group what everyone thinks." and act like that makes you actually democratic about things - reach out to your players for input on the topic, incorporate that input into the way you rule on the game, and then you can say you are likely to take a democratic approach - but sitting silently and waiting for your players to bring forward complaints, which they are basically programmed not to do if they've read any of the "the DM is always right" portions of the game books and/or see you as a friend so they'd rather not risk upsetting you by "whining" about the game you play together that is generally fun for them (assuming their returning to play multiple sessions is as a result of their enjoyment), is functionally opposite of taking a democratic approach.
It's not an issue of how much time is added to the sequence of events, but of how the player will view their spell choice.
As far as the time to sequence of events, that was in response to the post above mine which said it would make it unnecessarily complicated, which I took as adding time on, which I don't believe to be the case. I know I didn't quote him and write it out that way, but that's why that was in there. Maybe I should have said I don't think it makes it more complicated. It makes it a more difficult decision, but the sequence doesn't necessarily become more complicated.
I.e. the difference between "I took shield, so I can use that to avoid some attacks and help my character survive getting targeted by the bad guys." and "I will never cast shield because I can't be sure when it will work and when it will just be throwing away a spell slot I could have used for something that actually works."
I consider this making the game more challenging, and a strategic move. You want to know as much as you can before making that move, but you don't have the time in battle to necessarily know everything that could affect it. I think the risk should be part of the decision.
And it isn't about you feeling bad or mean for the way you rule; it is about realizing that the way you rule shapes the way the players will view and play the game. In this case, whether they see reactions like shield as useful, or as too much of a gamble to really be worth it.
Maybe feeling "bad" or "Mean" isn't the best choice of words. What I really mean is fair in my judgement. It won't change how players view the game, it will inform players of how Irun the game. Players know that one DM is not the same as the next, and that they rule things differently. I don't see the difference between ruling that this spell should be intended this way vs ruling whether encumbrance should be enforced or not. Different games will have different rules arbiters and thus different interpretations. This isn't a bad thing.
Also, please don't be a person that says things like "If my players wanted it this way, I'd listen to them, and likely take a democratic approach and decide as a group what everyone thinks." and act like that makes you actually democratic about things - reach out to your players for input on the topic, incorporate that input into the way you rule on the game, and then you can say you are likely to take a democratic approach - but sitting silently and waiting for your players to bring forward complaints, which they are basically programmed not to do if they've read any of the "the DM is always right" portions of the game books and/or see you as a friend so they'd rather not risk upsetting you by "whining" about the game you play together that is generally fun for them (assuming their returning to play multiple sessions is as a result of their enjoyment), is functionally opposite of taking a democratic approach.
This is completely off-topic for the thread, but I feel obligated to respond to this because it has happened in alot of threads where we both post, a few of which getting to the point of becoming locked and completely derailing it -- I don't want that trend to continue so want to put this out there now.
We obviously DM different styles, clearly shown by the fact that we have conflicting opinions on several threads throughout these forums. I don't think my style is wrong, I also don't think your style is wrong. I don't tell you what to do, and I'd appreciate you not telling me what to do. I don't mind opinions and feedback or conflicting opinions, but telling me I'm just wrong about a subjective matter is not cool.
I am up front with my players about the type of game I like to play, and if I have any variations on the rules (which I do) I have them in a OneNote doc that I share with them before we even create characters to make it clear this is how I play. As decisions come up, I make a decision on the spot as to not waste time looking through rulebooks and arguing, and I note it down. I then research the rule after and make a decision myself. I tell my players what I decided and why. If they don't agree, they are free to tell me (and they have on more than one occasion). If they can give me a logical reason why their ruling should be used instead of mine, I might not agree with it which is when I will push it to the group as a whole to decide. I will then go with this democratic approach in this situation. However I do have the following point:
As the DM I am the one who makes (read arbiters) the rules, if they don't like them, they can tell me. I do change my opinions and rulings based on the group, but if I have a group of 5 and one person thinks it should be ruled a different way than me and the other 4 don't care either way, it's going to be the way I rule. Everyone will not agree on everything, that's just life. If that player still doesn't like it, they can choose to leave the game if it's that big of a deal to them.
I feel you are sort of overthinking just what the Shield spell is supposed to represent. It's really more of a gut casting in response to those "Oh shit, that's going to hurt me!" moments where it is obvious that you are about to get hit and you throw up a bit of magic to deflect the attack.
Is it nice if your DM tells you how much your attacker got so that you can do some quick math and decide if casting the spell is worth it or not? Sure. Is it required? Not really. But you do know that the attack is going to connect and that you can toss up a quick bit of magic to try and save yourself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Both sides should be privy to the same amount of information before making such a decision. If the DM gets to know the results of the roll before deciding to use Shield spell, then the players should as well. I think I would find it a little strange that every single caster NPC would somehow be able to predict the result, but a PC cannot.
If that were the case, I would start asking the DM when I attack any caster if they're going to cast Shield BEFORE I announce the result of every attack roll. That way there would be zero difference between an NPC and a PC casting the spell.
Both sides should be privy to the same amount of information before making such a decision. If the DM gets to know the results of the roll before deciding to use Shield spell, then the players should as well. I think I would find it a little strange that every single caster NPC would somehow be able to predict the result, but a PC cannot.
If that were the case, I would start asking the DM when I attack any caster if they're going to cast Shield BEFORE I announce the result of every attack roll. That way there would be zero difference between an NPC and a PC casting the spell.
Agreed fully, i have cast it and not had it not work several times against my players
Ignore Mearls' rules tweets. They're not official and his rulings are wrong fairly often.
A DM can roll behind a screen (the DMG explicitly says so), and is under no obligation to tell the player the die roll. There's pros and cons to doing this, but it's their choice. All the players need to know is that the monster scored a hit.
The DM may prefer that players aren't able to easily know a monster's attack bonuses over maintaining symmetry. At the end of the day you'll never get perfect information symmetry, and monsters using Shield is the exception, not the norm.
The DM could simply not metagame and ignore the player's rolls when deciding whether to use Shield. The players are already implicitly trusting them to not make decisions based on how they killed the monsters in the previous room of the dungeon, so they should have no trouble trusting the DM to be fair with their spellcasters too.
A pretty common compromise is to tell the player the number on the d20 if they're considering Shield. That still makes it somewhat hard for them to figure out the monster's attack bonus but they can make a more informed decision. A 13 is a safer bet than a 19.
A pretty common compromise is to tell the player the number on the d20 if they're considering Shield. That still makes it somewhat hard for them to figure out the monster's attack bonus but they can make a more informed decision. A 13 is a safer bet than a 19.
A better compromise would be to tell the player whether Shield would have made a difference if the DM wants to keep the roll a secret. This frees up the DM to use Shield normally without seeming unfair.
I consider this making the game more challenging, and a strategic move.[/quote]
In much the same way as a faulty controller makes a video game more challenging, sure.
I think the risk should be part of the decision.
Knowing for certain whether shield will work or not doesn't remove strategic risk - by which I mean there is always the risk that your limited resource used to cast shield would have had a more noteworthy result being used for another spell, i.e. taking that one hit enabling a later magic missile that could have killed a monster that you missed with a cantrip that then took their turn and scored a critical on someone in the party - it just removes the "I spent a spell slot on having less spell slots" risk.
It won't change how players view the game, it will inform players of how Irun the game. Players know that one DM is not the same as the next, and that they rule things differently.
You are creating a distinction without a difference. When I said "change how the players view the game" I was meaning that at your table they would see shield as being a thing of guesswork that might occasionally go right and protect their character from an attack but will always have a risk of not doing anything but costing them a spell slot, and if those same people played at my table they would see shield differently - hence the phrase "change (different) how players view (see) the game (i.e. spells/other reactions you rule similarly)"
I don't tell you what to do, and I'd appreciate you not telling me what to do.
No one told you what to do. "Please don't" is a request. "Stop" would be an order.
...if I have a group of 5 and one person thinks it should be ruled a different way than me and the other 4 don't care either way, it's going to be the way I rule.
This is an example of why I said you are wrong when you apply the term "democratic approach" to how you oversee your table. You are saying if you have 1 vote for A, 1 vote for B, and 4 uncounted votes that you have a clear outcome of the vote... an actually democratic approach would necessitate those 4 uncounted votes to break the tie, instead of treating whatever leaning the DM has as inherently more important because they are the DM. Yes, the DM should be the tie-breaking vote... but that is assuming that the tie isn't because of the DM, or voting is entirely irrelevant to what the group are going to do.
But yes, I do agree that we shouldn't push so hard on this argument as to get a thread locked down... so I'll end my arguments here with a final thought; I think I'd be very interested to hear the results of you specifically asking your players to choose which they would prefer between shield continuing to function on their ability to guess when it will benefit them, and them being made aware of when shield would definitely work against an attack targeting them (by you saying "The [insert attack] hits, but shield would stop it." if you are, as I would guess you are, opposed to the level of transparency that telling the player the results of your dies rolls would entail).
Imo the spell it's too powerful for 5E.. one could argue that the spell description would better fit a 3.5 setting where bonuses to both attacks and ac are higher. When the magic limit to items is +3 one could argue that the spell itself should reach a maximum of +3, as mage armor. I really much would like to downtune the spell and maybe make it progressively tougher by expending higher level spell slots.
As it is now I think its totally fair to say: -DM rolls, asks for AC of player -DM states if it hits -Player decides wether to use shield or not -DM reveals if it hits wether shield was used or not. (note, actual dice roll was never revealed and its not necessary, revealing dice is always meta)
Its a tedious and tiring process, but a whooping +5 ac for the attack and the rest of the attacks until players next turn is extremely powerful for a lvl 1 spell slot, and should be dealt with as such.
Now the priests shield of faith adds +2 and requires concentration to maintain, blocking most of the other spells like group buffs etc.. the payoff is clear there. And could also argue that clerics should have a scalable version of this spell as well, to protect themselves or others, with scalable parameters.
My version of it would be if the player wants to have insight on the actual roll to see if it hits or not, if they waste the spell slot or not, would be to make the spell as it is actually named: Create a magical shield (+2 AC), like using a 1st lvl spell slot to make a surrounding force field with strenght like a shield but better (negates magic missiles, which is huge imo). One can create a better version when 3rd level spell slot is available (+3 ac for a 3rd lvl spell slot) (like a +1 shield would) +4 for a 5th lvl spell slot (+2 shield) +5 for a 7th lvl spell slot (+3 shield) maybe even +6 for a 9th lvl spell slot (+4 shield?.. or 2 mage armors equivalent?) Simply because creating a stronger barrier requires more magical weave. With this payoff one could even argue that the caster could use the shield to protect others as a reaction making for a more interesting role as a shield caster. Maybe even range would increase with the spell slot used.
-DM makes attack roll on one player, asks for AC -DM states if it hits -Shield casting player within range asks DM for the roll -DM reveals roll -Shield caster decides wether or not which shield spell to use -Attack resolves
With this rework I think the spell becomes more interesting and becomes a more balanced form of protective spell. As it is now a +5 ac for a 1st lvl spell slot is just way too OP, ...imo.
Well, the important thing that I think some people are glossing over is that the reaction is explicitly triggered by an attack landing, and specifically states that increase in AC is then applied against the triggering attack. So there's really no reason, outside of house ruling, that the player should be forced to make the decision of whether or not to use shield before they know if the attack lands. If an attack whiffs than it does not meet the trigger requirements for the Shield Reaction, so RAW it's impossible for the player to cast the spell in that way.
That said, I don't think the DM is under any obligation to tell the player what the enemies attack roll was. From my experience most DMs I know just state, "The creature rolled a 16", or "does 16 beat your armor class?", but they could just as easily keep the players AC written down or just ask the player what their AC is. So if you want to add more risk it's totally fair to not let them know the exact number so they can't just do the math to figure out if it's worth the spell slot
As a player with a L5 Sorcerer - I can tell you with experience that Aaron is SPOT ON. I have 6 spells known - every one of those is precious. A few weeks ago my DM sprang a new ruling on Shield saying that he would not reveal the result of the attack roll going forward (previously he did). Well, I used it and it didn't hit. I wasted a precious spell slot and have now removed Shield from my known spells. That type of ruling completely rendered the spell useless for me. I think many of you are underestimating the cost of casting it as the trade-off for the +5AC. You can only cast it as a 1st level spell, and you only get 4 of those slots. It's not like folks will end up casting it every time they get hit by an attack.
As a player with a L5 Sorcerer - I can tell you with experience that Aaron is SPOT ON. I have 6 spells known - every one of those is precious. A few weeks ago my DM sprang a new ruling on Shield saying that he would not reveal the result of the attack roll going forward (previously he did). Well, I used it and it didn't hit. I wasted a precious spell slot and have now removed Shield from my known spells. That type of ruling completely rendered the spell useless for me. I think many of you are underestimating the cost of casting it as the trade-off for the +5AC. You can only cast it as a 1st level spell, and you only get 4 of those slots. It's not like folks will end up casting it every time they get hit by an attack.
Just going to point out that you absolutely can cast Shield using any level spell slot. You just don't get any more than the +5AC from doing so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
No prob. For what it's worth, most people I know (myself included) generally value not getting hit as being well-worth the use of a higher slot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There was a debate on Facebook about how the Shield spell works and what it looks like. I thought that it would be worth sharing in forum.
The Shield spell grants a +5 bonus to AC, cast when you are hit by an attack.
According to Sage Advice, the caster should know the roll made for the attack before casting Shield.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/10/11/shield-before/
There were some that argued that the caster should not know the roll and should cast Shield before seeing if the spell would block the attack or not, because it was metagaming too much to know the roll.
The counter argument was that if the caster was able to cast Shield in time (the moment before impact, before damage can be rolled), then the barrier of force created by the spell would block the attack, so if the attack was going to hit anyway, the caster would not have had the chance to cast the spell in the first place before getting hit.
This brought up a question of whether Shield was a surrounding forcefield that could be broken through or if it was something more like a big floating shield made of force that positioned itself to block attacks.
It was argued for the floating shield opinion that Shield gave a bonus to AC instead of temporary hit points like the abjuration wizard archetype feature Arcane Ward, so it wasn't something destructible.
It was also argued for the floating shield opinion that the Shield spell does not protect from area effects, so it couldn't be a surrounding field that covered the body from head to toe.
The counter argument about the lack of protection from area effects was that the Shield Master feat allows a character to use a shield to defend against area effects. The counter argument was itself countered by a statement that a feat could be made to do the same for the Shield spell, and that if it takes a feat to make a worn shield or Shield spell to protect from an area effect, then neither would normally have an effect that covered the whole body at all times.
Mage Armor was mentioned as a surrounding effect that granted AC instead of temporary hit points, but that was countered by the argument that Mage Armor might surround, but it does not necessarily envelop completely from head to toe; a belt surrounds the body but it doesn't cover everything. Mage Armor probably functions more like (though not exactly like) actual worn armor, which is why it can only be cast on a creature not wearing armor.
The debate ended there. What do you all think? How do you feel about this?
My RPG Design Blog on Facebook
My Recent Product Announcements on Twitter
Every DM can run their game as they want, but RAW and RAI seem clear. And my Diviner casts many of his Magic Missiles with a 2nd level spell slot because in SKT, too many things can almost do full wizard HP with every blow...
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
Bran -- Human Wizard - RoT
Making D&D mistakes and having fun since 1977!
Hi!
I would agree with the first poster. Mechanically, in terms of how the shield spell functions, the rules are very clear.
The player can only use the shield spell when he is hit by an attack. He/she then decides whether to use shield as a reaction or not (sage advice apparently indicates that they get to see the die roll even though the spell doesn't specify this). Once shield is on it adds 5 to AC and neutralizes magic missiles until the players next turn. Direction of attack doesn't matter.
Everything else you mention is entirely fluff, it doesn't affect how the spell works, defining how people want to perceive its function won't find any hidden strengths or weaknesses. It will simply give you a way to visualize it.
The only question is whether the player gets to see the die roll before deciding to cast shield. The spell text specifically says that the player knows they have been hit. It does not say that they get to see the die roll. The sage advice response indicates that they should see the die roll. However, any DM is free to consider or ignore the information from sage advice as they wish (this is explicitly spelled out in the Adventurers League rules and any DM running their own campaign is free to decide as they wish).
Also, keep in mind that even if the player knows the die roll, this may still not also give them enough information to decide whether a shield spell will actually cause the attack to miss. The player may not know the attack bonus of the creature hitting them. Knowing the die roll does make it easier to decide but it may not guarantee the outcome. Given that spells are limited resources and a shield spell is purely defensive, I would personally play it by allowing the player to know the die roll before deciding whether to use the spell or not. However, that decision is completely up to the individual DM and could easily go either way. Arguing about fluff details of how different people visualize the spell to work can't lead to any conclusion about whether the player should know the die roll or not ... that is strictly up to how the individual DM wants to play it.
1) I agree with the Devs, the player should know if the spell is going to be useful and if they want to expense the slot on it.
2) If you don't play it this way, it's going to get super complicated. When I'm a player my DMs say "I hit AC 16 does that get you?". As a player I can say "Yes." Or "No I used my reaction to cast Shield my AV is now 18."
It's going to suddenly be a huge game of stupidly "hidden" (not hidden) information. Then, if there DM has an NPC with the Shield spell the players would have full rights to say the DM didn't get to see thier roll when attacking the enemy wizard, Because "That's how it works".
Knowing the dice roll before casting shield to me just seems odd. I don't think it would add that much time to the sequence of events either, at least not in the way I run my games.
"Monster1 is going to attacks WizardPlayer with his longsword"
--If you're going to cast shield you would say so here
"WizardPlayer, I rolled a 17 does that hit you, remember if I tie your AC that's a hit"?
"13, oh wait I wanted to cast shield, so 18"
"Sorry, you didn't say before I told you the roll -- it's a hit"
It would only take that happening once for the player to remember that, and the way I rule almost everything else that's reactionary you have to do before the roll/result is known and I'm up front with my players about that, so I don't feel bad or mean enforcing it. Things like using your inspiration die for advantage, I make them state they are using it before they know the result -- they can roll the die and see their number, then decide, but once I tell them pass or fail, the opportunity is gone.
However, I do understand the other side of this argument. A reaction is by definition taken after an action happens in response to that action. Being a reaction it can logically be argued that the action is completed (thus the roll made and known) then you react by casting shield giving you the bonus. If my players wanted it this way, I'd listen to them, and likely take a democratic approach and decide as a group what everyone thinks.
Thinking of it in terms "visually" this way if you wanted, I would say it's an instant reaction, more of an instinctual effect from your spell-casting abilities, almost like a force-field around you that takes the hit, thus protecting you. I might even describe a slight aura appears around you as the attack impacts (but generally I'd let my player decide what their "shield" looks like).
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
It's not an issue of how much time is added to the sequence of events, but of how the player will view their spell choice.
I.e. the difference between "I took shield, so I can use that to avoid some attacks and help my character survive getting targeted by the bad guys." and "I will never cast shield because I can't be sure when it will work and when it will just be throwing away a spell slot I could have used for something that actually works."
And it isn't about you feeling bad or mean for the way you rule; it is about realizing that the way you rule shapes the way the players will view and play the game. In this case, whether they see reactions like shield as useful, or as too much of a gamble to really be worth it.
Also, please don't be a person that says things like "If my players wanted it this way, I'd listen to them, and likely take a democratic approach and decide as a group what everyone thinks." and act like that makes you actually democratic about things - reach out to your players for input on the topic, incorporate that input into the way you rule on the game, and then you can say you are likely to take a democratic approach - but sitting silently and waiting for your players to bring forward complaints, which they are basically programmed not to do if they've read any of the "the DM is always right" portions of the game books and/or see you as a friend so they'd rather not risk upsetting you by "whining" about the game you play together that is generally fun for them (assuming their returning to play multiple sessions is as a result of their enjoyment), is functionally opposite of taking a democratic approach.
As far as the time to sequence of events, that was in response to the post above mine which said it would make it unnecessarily complicated, which I took as adding time on, which I don't believe to be the case. I know I didn't quote him and write it out that way, but that's why that was in there. Maybe I should have said I don't think it makes it more complicated. It makes it a more difficult decision, but the sequence doesn't necessarily become more complicated.
Maybe feeling "bad" or "Mean" isn't the best choice of words. What I really mean is fair in my judgement. It won't change how players view the game, it will inform players of how I run the game. Players know that one DM is not the same as the next, and that they rule things differently. I don't see the difference between ruling that this spell should be intended this way vs ruling whether encumbrance should be enforced or not. Different games will have different rules arbiters and thus different interpretations. This isn't a bad thing.
I am up front with my players about the type of game I like to play, and if I have any variations on the rules (which I do) I have them in a OneNote doc that I share with them before we even create characters to make it clear this is how I play. As decisions come up, I make a decision on the spot as to not waste time looking through rulebooks and arguing, and I note it down. I then research the rule after and make a decision myself. I tell my players what I decided and why. If they don't agree, they are free to tell me (and they have on more than one occasion). If they can give me a logical reason why their ruling should be used instead of mine, I might not agree with it which is when I will push it to the group as a whole to decide. I will then go with this democratic approach in this situation. However I do have the following point:
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
I feel you are sort of overthinking just what the Shield spell is supposed to represent. It's really more of a gut casting in response to those "Oh shit, that's going to hurt me!" moments where it is obvious that you are about to get hit and you throw up a bit of magic to deflect the attack.
Is it nice if your DM tells you how much your attacker got so that you can do some quick math and decide if casting the spell is worth it or not? Sure. Is it required? Not really. But you do know that the attack is going to connect and that you can toss up a quick bit of magic to try and save yourself.
Both sides should be privy to the same amount of information before making such a decision. If the DM gets to know the results of the roll before deciding to use Shield spell, then the players should as well. I think I would find it a little strange that every single caster NPC would somehow be able to predict the result, but a PC cannot.
If that were the case, I would start asking the DM when I attack any caster if they're going to cast Shield BEFORE I announce the result of every attack roll. That way there would be zero difference between an NPC and a PC casting the spell.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Ignore Mearls' rules tweets. They're not official and his rulings are wrong fairly often.
A DM can roll behind a screen (the DMG explicitly says so), and is under no obligation to tell the player the die roll. There's pros and cons to doing this, but it's their choice. All the players need to know is that the monster scored a hit.
The DM may prefer that players aren't able to easily know a monster's attack bonuses over maintaining symmetry. At the end of the day you'll never get perfect information symmetry, and monsters using Shield is the exception, not the norm.
The DM could simply not metagame and ignore the player's rolls when deciding whether to use Shield. The players are already implicitly trusting them to not make decisions based on how they killed the monsters in the previous room of the dungeon, so they should have no trouble trusting the DM to be fair with their spellcasters too.
A pretty common compromise is to tell the player the number on the d20 if they're considering Shield. That still makes it somewhat hard for them to figure out the monster's attack bonus but they can make a more informed decision. A 13 is a safer bet than a 19.
My RPG Design Blog on Facebook
My Recent Product Announcements on Twitter
In much the same way as a faulty controller makes a video game more challenging, sure.
Knowing for certain whether shield will work or not doesn't remove strategic risk - by which I mean there is always the risk that your limited resource used to cast shield would have had a more noteworthy result being used for another spell, i.e. taking that one hit enabling a later magic missile that could have killed a monster that you missed with a cantrip that then took their turn and scored a critical on someone in the party - it just removes the "I spent a spell slot on having less spell slots" risk.But yes, I do agree that we shouldn't push so hard on this argument as to get a thread locked down... so I'll end my arguments here with a final thought; I think I'd be very interested to hear the results of you specifically asking your players to choose which they would prefer between shield continuing to function on their ability to guess when it will benefit them, and them being made aware of when shield would definitely work against an attack targeting them (by you saying "The [insert attack] hits, but shield would stop it." if you are, as I would guess you are, opposed to the level of transparency that telling the player the results of your dies rolls would entail).
All I'm going to say is that I would take shield at a much lower caster level at AaronOfBarbaria's table than at Mehetmet's.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Imo the spell it's too powerful for 5E.. one could argue that the spell description would better fit a 3.5 setting where bonuses to both attacks and ac are higher.
When the magic limit to items is +3 one could argue that the spell itself should reach a maximum of +3, as mage armor.
I really much would like to downtune the spell and maybe make it progressively tougher by expending higher level spell slots.
As it is now I think its totally fair to say:
-DM rolls, asks for AC of player
-DM states if it hits
-Player decides wether to use shield or not
-DM reveals if it hits wether shield was used or not. (note, actual dice roll was never revealed and its not necessary, revealing dice is always meta)
Its a tedious and tiring process, but a whooping +5 ac for the attack and the rest of the attacks until players next turn is extremely powerful for a lvl 1 spell slot, and should be dealt with as such.
Now the priests shield of faith adds +2 and requires concentration to maintain, blocking most of the other spells like group buffs etc.. the payoff is clear there.
And could also argue that clerics should have a scalable version of this spell as well, to protect themselves or others, with scalable parameters.
My version of it would be if the player wants to have insight on the actual roll to see if it hits or not, if they waste the spell slot or not, would be to make the spell as it is actually named:
Create a magical shield (+2 AC), like using a 1st lvl spell slot to make a surrounding force field with strenght like a shield but better (negates magic missiles, which is huge imo).
One can create a better version when 3rd level spell slot is available (+3 ac for a 3rd lvl spell slot) (like a +1 shield would)
+4 for a 5th lvl spell slot (+2 shield)
+5 for a 7th lvl spell slot (+3 shield)
maybe even +6 for a 9th lvl spell slot (+4 shield?.. or 2 mage armors equivalent?)
Simply because creating a stronger barrier requires more magical weave.
With this payoff one could even argue that the caster could use the shield to protect others as a reaction making for a more interesting role as a shield caster.
Maybe even range would increase with the spell slot used.
-DM makes attack roll on one player, asks for AC
-DM states if it hits
-Shield casting player within range asks DM for the roll
-DM reveals roll
-Shield caster decides wether or not which shield spell to use
-Attack resolves
With this rework I think the spell becomes more interesting and becomes a more balanced form of protective spell.
As it is now a +5 ac for a 1st lvl spell slot is just way too OP, ...imo.
Kind Regards
DM Velasquez
Let me know what you think
Well, the important thing that I think some people are glossing over is that the reaction is explicitly triggered by an attack landing, and specifically states that increase in AC is then applied against the triggering attack. So there's really no reason, outside of house ruling, that the player should be forced to make the decision of whether or not to use shield before they know if the attack lands. If an attack whiffs than it does not meet the trigger requirements for the Shield Reaction, so RAW it's impossible for the player to cast the spell in that way.
That said, I don't think the DM is under any obligation to tell the player what the enemies attack roll was. From my experience most DMs I know just state, "The creature rolled a 16", or "does 16 beat your armor class?", but they could just as easily keep the players AC written down or just ask the player what their AC is. So if you want to add more risk it's totally fair to not let them know the exact number so they can't just do the math to figure out if it's worth the spell slot
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
As a player with a L5 Sorcerer - I can tell you with experience that Aaron is SPOT ON. I have 6 spells known - every one of those is precious. A few weeks ago my DM sprang a new ruling on Shield saying that he would not reveal the result of the attack roll going forward (previously he did). Well, I used it and it didn't hit. I wasted a precious spell slot and have now removed Shield from my known spells. That type of ruling completely rendered the spell useless for me. I think many of you are underestimating the cost of casting it as the trade-off for the +5AC. You can only cast it as a 1st level spell, and you only get 4 of those slots. It's not like folks will end up casting it every time they get hit by an attack.
Just going to point out that you absolutely can cast Shield using any level spell slot. You just don't get any more than the +5AC from doing so.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Fair enough, my bad - thanks for the correction.
I'm not sure it changes my perspective though... that makes it even more "expensive".
No prob. For what it's worth, most people I know (myself included) generally value not getting hit as being well-worth the use of a higher slot.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.