You get to know that the attack hits you and you choose if you use Shield or not.
RAF:
You are told the attack roll result and may decide to use Shield or not.
-
It is up to the DM on how they want to present this information, be it the RAW or RAF ways. The RAF is of course better as you have no risk of wasting a spell slot if the attack would still beat your AC + 5 anyway. However, this is optional by DM and not specifically the RAW of the spell or general combat.
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.
Just a quick comment ... the players DM changed how shield works :
"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. "
The way I read it ... in this case the DM is NOT revealing whether the attack was a hit or not, forcing the character to decide whether to cast the spell every time an opponent swings not knowing whether it is a hit or not. It is a major nerf to the spell. In the example, the poster used shield on a swing that didn't hit in the first place.
With that house rule, I too would be in two minds about whether shield would be worthwhile at all or not since a sorcerer simply doesn't have enough slots to use shield on every possible hit.
There seems to be a controversy on how this spell works and I really don't understand why. Its very clearly printed in the spells description that when the player is hit meaning when the hit dice are rolled and its determined that it is above their AC that they may only cast the spell at that point in time. It doesn't say show the player the dice or tell them your roll. I think the real controversy is how you choose to DM your games and if you wanna blurt out how high you're rolling to your players that's your choice but you can't penalize them, because you aren't Dm'ing with consideration to a persons intelligence. An that is also said without consideration to the character's knowledge, because the character doesn't understand that people are rolling dice and what time would be optimal for him to use what spells based on mathematics that aren't measurable to them. The Character would only be able to react in that split second of realization that they are about to be hit. Its not about how high of a chance they have of hitting you its about have you exceeded the base AC of the character. If so then tell your player they are getting hit simple as that is their opportunity to react or take the hit as is.
So in short I guess it comes down to do you play with the ruling of "player made faults" ( for example moving away from an enemy without using a disengage action. If you'd ruthlessly use that as an opportunity of attack rather than a moment of teaching your player to make better choices then you can't blame them for using the knowledge you give them to their advantage.) Because I believe if you hold players to fault's then you should hold DM's to their own as well and much of that is determined by how much knowledge you let loose from the lips.
All Shield cares is if the attack roll is a hit or not. DMs are not required to reveal their rolls.
But any game elements that confer a bonus or penalty to a roll is more effective if the roll is known in advance. It avoid wasting them on rolls that are either too low or high as well as automatic hit or miss.
I honestly believe the shield spell used the way it's written is fine (gee maybe I should read it again).
Dm declares what their to hit was (enemy attacking the person with the capability of casting shield) Player can than use shield to block the attack, knowing what the to hit is.
That being said nowhere does it say the player needs to know about what the DM rolled, and if they were able to do that it would be meta gaming because now they know what the monsters attack plus/spell plus is. That being said making folks need to announce shield prior to knowing if the attack hits, just makes the spell meaningless for the most part (especially considering the fact most of the people who would be using the spell do not have high AC's unless they get "creative").
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"
This is explicitly incorrect. Shield is cast in response to being hit. Not in response to being attacked.
We can debate whether or not the players should know the numerical result of the roll or not. Sure. but this? This is just not accurate entirely. They must know if the attack hits or misses to be able to cast shield because the trigger for the spell is being hit. Casting it when you want them to isn't even a eligible time frame for the spell.
As written the rules are quite clear. The attacker has to declare the attack has hit (not the modified die roll); only then does the defender cast shield. If the defender has AC 15 and the modified attack roll is 20+, well, that's the way it goes. You still have a decent chance of blocking the attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be listening to Rehn Stillnight.
Hard to say, Jeremy Crawford later tweeted that Shield spell doesn't require you to know the die roll.
One of my issues with that is, when you are facing a Wizard or any spell caster NPC, you don't get to roll and ask your DM for the creature's AC to see if it hits, you have to tell your DM "I rolled a blank, does it hit" and then your DM can decide to use Shield spell if that creature has it as a spell option (or if DM added it homebrew to increase creature's difficulty). Now, that won't come up nearly as often as a Player would use Shield spell, but still it kind of bothers me that way.
A quick note - instead of saying “I rolled a _____________”. You could say ( after adding in all bonuses to hit) “ I hit AC ____________” . While it is basically the same thing the phrasing is such that if done the second way it’s clear whether the shield spell is useful. The other way to do it is to have layers and DMs announce the AC and the attacker state whether they hit or not. Then the player can decide if they want to use shield knowing the ly whether they were hit or not which is all that the spell requires RAW.
using the encounter beta veryone sees all the rolls anyway so then the whole question is fairly moot.
My DM rolls behind a screen and always asks for our AC and will just say "this creature hit you 2 out of 3 attacks" as an example. This happened just last game and I used Shield Spell and was lucky to stop 1 of the 2 attacks that hit. Certainly makes me question using the Shield spell much go forward since my spell slots are really limited (I'm a Paladin with 1 lvl Warlock so only go the Shield Spell that way).
Be nice if the very least you got to know the actual die roll but say you didn't know the creature's attack modifier added, so not the overall attack number. It just gives you something, but per RAW all you really get to know is if it hits or doesn't.
As a DM I roll behind a screen and ask for the PC’s AC most of the time and just tell them if it was a hit or a miss. Part of the shield spell is that it’s a gamble. That’s for game balance purposes.
PS- To be fair, if the player asks whether the hit was a solid hit or not, I’ll tell them that. So it gives them some idea if shield will work or not without giving them the actual numbers.
One of my issues with that is, when you are facing a Wizard or any spell caster NPC, you don't get to roll and ask your DM for the creature's AC to see if it hits, you have to tell your DM "I rolled a blank, does it hit" and then your DM can decide to use Shield spell if that creature has it as a spell option (or if DM added it homebrew to increase creature's difficulty). Now, that won't come up nearly as often as a Player would use Shield spell, but still it kind of bothers me that way.
Yeah, as a DM I don't have an issue with the "does a 22 hit?" method of letting the player judge when they want to use shield. In the "reality" of the game, a caster is going to have a pretty clear idea when their shield spell is going to be useful and when an attack is going to tear right through it. All a player has is the die roll, and the info the DM gives them
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
One of my issues with that is, when you are facing a Wizard or any spell caster NPC, you don't get to roll and ask your DM for the creature's AC to see if it hits, you have to tell your DM "I rolled a blank, does it hit" and then your DM can decide to use Shield spell if that creature has it as a spell option (or if DM added it homebrew to increase creature's difficulty). Now, that won't come up nearly as often as a Player would use Shield spell, but still it kind of bothers me that way.
Yeah, as a DM I don't have an issue with the "does a 22 hit?" method of letting the player judge when they want to use shield. In the "reality" of the game, a caster is going to have a pretty clear idea when their shield spell is going to be useful and when an attack is going to tear right through it. All a player has is the die roll, and the info the DM gives them
I like that idea as well. I always thought a caster would know "oh this attack is way to strong for my spell to be useful" if it was too high of an attack roll. Especially for Wizards or Sorcerers who only have like a 12 or 13 AC, then its really easy for Shield to not be effective and its way more of a gamble than say Hexblade Warlock or someone with an 18 AC who also has the spell. So the gamble isn't really proportionate for every class.
RAW, shield only requires the caster to know that they were hit, not what the die roll was.
However, I make all the die rolls in the open these days so in games I run the player knows what the die roll was just as the DM does when deciding whether an NPC will use shield.
This does result in a more optimized use of the shield spell. However, even at higher levels, spell slots can be a scarce resource (though the cost of a reaction is also a scarce resource - I've had an NPC cast shield to prevent an attack and then been unable to counterspell) so I really don't see any issue in allowing its use only when it will make a difference on a specific attack. It makes the players feel more powerful and it balances the knowledge available to DMs and players when deciding whether to use the spell.
The only person it hurts to keep the roll a secret from is the guy who isn't optimizing his AC and is just using shield to not insta die in every encounter.
It doesn't really hurt the guy with 20+AC who shields whenever he somehow gets hit. As it's almost guaranteed to work for him.
That's why I can't really get behind the notion of keeping this information hidden, as you're disproportionately punishing the unoptimized. The exact person you probably shouldn't be.
I will place another argument on the matter. The DM "knows" the PC's AC to prep for encounters, make the tactics more fun. He doesn't have to "know" the PC's AC for the purposes of "shield" spell. If the DM doesn't metagame at the moment, the monster doesn't know the defenses of the PC, hence the DM declares the attack result and the player his total AC (with or without shield)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
RAW:
You get to know that the attack hits you and you choose if you use Shield or not.
RAF:
You are told the attack roll result and may decide to use Shield or not.
-
It is up to the DM on how they want to present this information, be it the RAW or RAF ways. The RAF is of course better as you have no risk of wasting a spell slot if the attack would still beat your AC + 5 anyway. However, this is optional by DM and not specifically the RAW of the spell or general combat.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
Just a quick comment ... the players DM changed how shield works :
"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. "
The way I read it ... in this case the DM is NOT revealing whether the attack was a hit or not, forcing the character to decide whether to cast the spell every time an opponent swings not knowing whether it is a hit or not. It is a major nerf to the spell. In the example, the poster used shield on a swing that didn't hit in the first place.
With that house rule, I too would be in two minds about whether shield would be worthwhile at all or not since a sorcerer simply doesn't have enough slots to use shield on every possible hit.
There seems to be a controversy on how this spell works and I really don't understand why. Its very clearly printed in the spells description that when the player is hit meaning when the hit dice are rolled and its determined that it is above their AC that they may only cast the spell at that point in time. It doesn't say show the player the dice or tell them your roll. I think the real controversy is how you choose to DM your games and if you wanna blurt out how high you're rolling to your players that's your choice but you can't penalize them, because you aren't Dm'ing with consideration to a persons intelligence. An that is also said without consideration to the character's knowledge, because the character doesn't understand that people are rolling dice and what time would be optimal for him to use what spells based on mathematics that aren't measurable to them. The Character would only be able to react in that split second of realization that they are about to be hit. Its not about how high of a chance they have of hitting you its about have you exceeded the base AC of the character. If so then tell your player they are getting hit simple as that is their opportunity to react or take the hit as is.
So in short I guess it comes down to do you play with the ruling of "player made faults" ( for example moving away from an enemy without using a disengage action. If you'd ruthlessly use that as an opportunity of attack rather than a moment of teaching your player to make better choices then you can't blame them for using the knowledge you give them to their advantage.) Because I believe if you hold players to fault's then you should hold DM's to their own as well and much of that is determined by how much knowledge you let loose from the lips.
All Shield cares is if the attack roll is a hit or not. DMs are not required to reveal their rolls.
But any game elements that confer a bonus or penalty to a roll is more effective if the roll is known in advance. It avoid wasting them on rolls that are either too low or high as well as automatic hit or miss.
I honestly believe the shield spell used the way it's written is fine (gee maybe I should read it again).
Dm declares what their to hit was (enemy attacking the person with the capability of casting shield)
Player can than use shield to block the attack, knowing what the to hit is.
That being said nowhere does it say the player needs to know about what the DM rolled, and if they were able to do that it would be meta gaming because now they know what the monsters attack plus/spell plus is. That being said making folks need to announce shield prior to knowing if the attack hits, just makes the spell meaningless for the most part (especially considering the fact most of the people who would be using the spell do not have high AC's unless they get "creative").
This is explicitly incorrect. Shield is cast in response to being hit. Not in response to being attacked.
We can debate whether or not the players should know the numerical result of the roll or not. Sure. but this? This is just not accurate entirely. They must know if the attack hits or misses to be able to cast shield because the trigger for the spell is being hit. Casting it when you want them to isn't even a eligible time frame for the spell.
I got quotes!
As written the rules are quite clear. The attacker has to declare the attack has hit (not the modified die roll); only then does the defender cast shield. If the defender has AC 15 and the modified attack roll is 20+, well, that's the way it goes. You still have a decent chance of blocking the attack.
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be listening to Rehn Stillnight.
Hard to say, Jeremy Crawford later tweeted that Shield spell doesn't require you to know the die roll.
One of my issues with that is, when you are facing a Wizard or any spell caster NPC, you don't get to roll and ask your DM for the creature's AC to see if it hits, you have to tell your DM "I rolled a blank, does it hit" and then your DM can decide to use Shield spell if that creature has it as a spell option (or if DM added it homebrew to increase creature's difficulty). Now, that won't come up nearly as often as a Player would use Shield spell, but still it kind of bothers me that way.
A quick note - instead of saying “I rolled a _____________”. You could say ( after adding in all bonuses to hit) “ I hit AC ____________” . While it is basically the same thing the phrasing is such that if done the second way it’s clear whether the shield spell is useful. The other way to do it is to have layers and DMs announce the AC and the attacker state whether they hit or not. Then the player can decide if they want to use shield knowing the ly whether they were hit or not which is all that the spell requires RAW.
using the encounter beta veryone sees all the rolls anyway so then the whole question is fairly moot.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
My DM rolls behind a screen and always asks for our AC and will just say "this creature hit you 2 out of 3 attacks" as an example. This happened just last game and I used Shield Spell and was lucky to stop 1 of the 2 attacks that hit. Certainly makes me question using the Shield spell much go forward since my spell slots are really limited (I'm a Paladin with 1 lvl Warlock so only go the Shield Spell that way).
Be nice if the very least you got to know the actual die roll but say you didn't know the creature's attack modifier added, so not the overall attack number. It just gives you something, but per RAW all you really get to know is if it hits or doesn't.
As a DM I roll behind a screen and ask for the PC’s AC most of the time and just tell them if it was a hit or a miss. Part of the shield spell is that it’s a gamble. That’s for game balance purposes.
PS- To be fair, if the player asks whether the hit was a solid hit or not, I’ll tell them that. So it gives them some idea if shield will work or not without giving them the actual numbers.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Yeah, as a DM I don't have an issue with the "does a 22 hit?" method of letting the player judge when they want to use shield. In the "reality" of the game, a caster is going to have a pretty clear idea when their shield spell is going to be useful and when an attack is going to tear right through it. All a player has is the die roll, and the info the DM gives them
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I like that idea as well. I always thought a caster would know "oh this attack is way to strong for my spell to be useful" if it was too high of an attack roll. Especially for Wizards or Sorcerers who only have like a 12 or 13 AC, then its really easy for Shield to not be effective and its way more of a gamble than say Hexblade Warlock or someone with an 18 AC who also has the spell. So the gamble isn't really proportionate for every class.
RAW, shield only requires the caster to know that they were hit, not what the die roll was.
However, I make all the die rolls in the open these days so in games I run the player knows what the die roll was just as the DM does when deciding whether an NPC will use shield.
This does result in a more optimized use of the shield spell. However, even at higher levels, spell slots can be a scarce resource (though the cost of a reaction is also a scarce resource - I've had an NPC cast shield to prevent an attack and then been unable to counterspell) so I really don't see any issue in allowing its use only when it will make a difference on a specific attack. It makes the players feel more powerful and it balances the knowledge available to DMs and players when deciding whether to use the spell.
The only person it hurts to keep the roll a secret from is the guy who isn't optimizing his AC and is just using shield to not insta die in every encounter.
It doesn't really hurt the guy with 20+AC who shields whenever he somehow gets hit. As it's almost guaranteed to work for him.
That's why I can't really get behind the notion of keeping this information hidden, as you're disproportionately punishing the unoptimized. The exact person you probably shouldn't be.
I got quotes!
I will place another argument on the matter.
The DM "knows" the PC's AC to prep for encounters, make the tactics more fun. He doesn't have to "know" the PC's AC for the purposes of "shield" spell. If the DM doesn't metagame at the moment, the monster doesn't know the defenses of the PC, hence the DM declares the attack result and the player his total AC (with or without shield)