Part of it too may depend on your stats. If you rolled for stats and say, have an 18 in INT and a 14 in DEX, maybe the better chance to hit with that firebolt is worth it depending on the ac of what you're fighting.
I largely agree with Steg's point. Sure a wizard will try and play it safe. (Unless they're say, a bladesinger in their bladesong at the moment etc) but playing it safe doesn't mean you're always actually BE safe.
On a class with less spells to pick early on I might be harder pressed to take shield, but for wizard it's a spell I'd be hard pressed not to take. Then again the DM I've played with in most of my time as a player tends to favor fewer but more lethal encounters and enemies. So that might overly inflate just how life saving shield can be for me compared to the average table.
I'd say its not just fewer more lethal encounters that plays into it but basic tactics. The reality is very little keeps enemies from just bum rushing the wizard in 5e, there is very little mechanical stickiness. You can stay back and use cover but that pretty much works because the DM is leaning into the tropes of the fighter holding the line. The same way when fighting the lich with his undead minions the party might run past the minions to stomp the lich, the enemies can do the same to the dude tossing fireballs in the back row. They can focus fire on a player just like the players focus fire on enemies. In a single fight its pretty easy for a wizard to burn through multiple shield and misty step spells if the DM is going after the wizard even with non hard encounters. Finding the balance of going after the wizard enough they have to use resources and keeping on the line so the fighter types fulfill the role of holding the line and protecting the other characters is a trick. Which is to say I wish there was more mechanical stickiness in the game, I think it helps the fighter types when they know the reason the monsters are still there and pounding on them is because they forced the issue with their abilities and not just because the DM is choosing to.
And with as a 1d&d thread think about how it can work out without mechanical stickiness now. A group of orcs attack, the one with highest initiative take a AoO or maybe can get to the back line without it, one attack is a grapple and then the orc pulls the wizard out of cover. Before it would be a athletics/acrobatics battle, maybe 50/50 odds depending on builds. Now its an attack roll, shield is probably coming in handy here.(which I think feels odd for the spell to work vs a grapple but oh well)If the orc hits your cover is gone and again shield probably is coming in handy. If grappled misty step is also probably coming in handy, but hey maybe you just accept the grapple as you want to cast a leveled spell.
Shield working to stop a grapple makes more sense. If I shoot an arrow you can stop it with a magical force field. If I swing a sword you can stop it. If I punch you can stop it. If I reach out with an open hand to grab you, then you can’t stop it. Why not? The new version makes more sense. I can’t grab you if I can’t reach you. If I beat your AC I either reach around or through your shield spell and grab you. If I don’t beat it my hand stops before I reach you.
I agree, why would shield be able to block a punch or kick, but not a grab?
Part of it too may depend on your stats. If you rolled for stats and say, have an 18 in INT and a 14 in DEX, maybe the better chance to hit with that firebolt is worth it depending on the ac of what you're fighting.
I largely agree with Steg's point. Sure a wizard will try and play it safe. (Unless they're say, a bladesinger in their bladesong at the moment etc) but playing it safe doesn't mean you're always actually BE safe.
On a class with less spells to pick early on I might be harder pressed to take shield, but for wizard it's a spell I'd be hard pressed not to take. Then again the DM I've played with in most of my time as a player tends to favor fewer but more lethal encounters and enemies. So that might overly inflate just how life saving shield can be for me compared to the average table.
I'd say its not just fewer more lethal encounters that plays into it but basic tactics. The reality is very little keeps enemies from just bum rushing the wizard in 5e, there is very little mechanical stickiness. You can stay back and use cover but that pretty much works because the DM is leaning into the tropes of the fighter holding the line. The same way when fighting the lich with his undead minions the party might run past the minions to stomp the lich, the enemies can do the same to the dude tossing fireballs in the back row. They can focus fire on a player just like the players focus fire on enemies. In a single fight its pretty easy for a wizard to burn through multiple shield and misty step spells if the DM is going after the wizard even with non hard encounters. Finding the balance of going after the wizard enough they have to use resources and keeping on the line so the fighter types fulfill the role of holding the line and protecting the other characters is a trick. Which is to say I wish there was more mechanical stickiness in the game, I think it helps the fighter types when they know the reason the monsters are still there and pounding on them is because they forced the issue with their abilities and not just because the DM is choosing to.
And with as a 1d&d thread think about how it can work out without mechanical stickiness now. A group of orcs attack, the one with highest initiative take a AoO or maybe can get to the back line without it, one attack is a grapple and then the orc pulls the wizard out of cover. Before it would be a athletics/acrobatics battle, maybe 50/50 odds depending on builds. Now its an attack roll, shield is probably coming in handy here.(which I think feels odd for the spell to work vs a grapple but oh well)If the orc hits your cover is gone and again shield probably is coming in handy. If grappled misty step is also probably coming in handy, but hey maybe you just accept the grapple as you want to cast a leveled spell.
Shield working to stop a grapple makes more sense. If I shoot an arrow you can stop it with a magical force field. If I swing a sword you can stop it. If I punch you can stop it. If I reach out with an open hand to grab you, then you can’t stop it. Why not? The new version makes more sense. I can’t grab you if I can’t reach you. If I beat your AC I either reach around or through your shield spell and grab you. If I don’t beat it my hand stops before I reach you.
Because physical armor in itself seems like a weird defense against a grab. I get its abstract but sometimes a layer of complexity like 3es touch AC just makes more sense.
Yeah this was probably the most disappointing parts for one of my players during the first playtest I ran. His barbarian failed a grapple roll he should have easily made because the skeleton had armor on. It didn't make sense and wasn't satisfying. He just wanted to body slam the last one of them to finish the fight. I let him do it anyway because the roll would have succeed in the current rules, and I quickly decided something had to change. I don't want to overcomplicate things either, but this version kind of sucks.
Yeah this was probably the most disappointing parts for one of my players during the first playtest I ran. His barbarian failed a grapple roll he should have easily made because the skeleton had armor on. It didn't make sense and wasn't satisfying. He just wanted to body slam the last one of them to finish the fight. I let him do it anyway because the roll would have succeed in the current rules, and I quickly decided something had to change. I don't want to overcomplicate things either, but this version kind of sucks.
I hear you. I wish there was some middle ground between the 5E "your armor class is your armor class" and having 5 or 6 circumstantial armor classes like in 3.0/3.5.
Yeah this was probably the most disappointing parts for one of my players during the first playtest I ran. His barbarian failed a grapple roll he should have easily made because the skeleton had armor on. It didn't make sense and wasn't satisfying. He just wanted to body slam the last one of them to finish the fight. I let him do it anyway because the roll would have succeed in the current rules, and I quickly decided something had to change. I don't want to overcomplicate things either, but this version kind of sucks.
It goes the other way as well. I had a 8 strength wizard grapple a ogre because even with the penalty to hit with his crap strength he could reasonably hit a low AC giant type. In theory he could have pulled it off in 5e but he would both have to roll good and the ogre bad. He was mounted so he was able to drag it a decent distance as well. Not sure if the slowed effect should apply to the steed but that is what I went with. Its a weird effect on all sides.
I mean, the best way is to probably make Grapples an Attack Roll vs Dex Save, but then we're back to contested rolls, which I've heard from these forums, that WoTC is trying to eliminate so...
You could maybe drop the attack roll entirely and make it a either str/dex save victims choice vs your str DC. Not sure that would work or not. But I can say the more we tested this grapple mechanic the weirder the results. Its not inherently bad, like its quick and easy but it has some weird results.
I'd say its not just fewer more lethal encounters that plays into it but basic tactics. The reality is very little keeps enemies from just bum rushing the wizard in 5e, there is very little mechanical stickiness.
I would generally agree with this statement, but the flip side is that in 5E it is very easy to make a wizard that can survive being bumrushed, or even make a wizard that will thrive in melee.
If they bumrush a Bladesinger they are doing exactly what the party wants them to do, and just about any wizard with shield, mage armor and misty step is going to do ok getting bumrushed and having enemies waste actions and take AOOs to get to the wizard is going to be favorable to the party in such a situation.
You can build a truly frail wizard in 5E, but that is a player choice more than anything else.
As far as grapple, I like the 5E rules and do not like the ONE rules. I would be ok with adding a rider to shield that gives a +5 to athletics or acrobatics to avoid a grapple or shove.
What would be the absolute worst mechanic though would be going to some kind of 3E design where you have a different AC for weapon attacks and touch attacks (like grappling).
I'd say its not just fewer more lethal encounters that plays into it but basic tactics. The reality is very little keeps enemies from just bum rushing the wizard in 5e, there is very little mechanical stickiness.
I would generally agree with this statement, but the flip side is that in 5E it is very easy to make a wizard that can survive being bumrushed, or even make a wizard that will thrive in melee.
If they bumrush a Bladesinger they are doing exactly what the party wants them to do, and just about any wizard with shield, mage armor and misty step is going to do ok getting bumrushed and having enemies waste actions and take AOOs to get to the wizard is going to be favorable to the party in such a situation.
You can build a truly frail wizard in 5E, but that is a player choice more than anything else.
It is possible to build a tougher wizard but usually its a bit resource expensive outside maybe the bladesinger. Like sure, yes shield, mage armor etc, but a wizard can quickly burn through all their 1st and 2nd level spells when being pressured at most the levels people play at. Which is sort of where the discussion started, not so much that wizards will die but that they may be needing to cast shield a lot. Some saying they rarely have to as they just hang back. It is very table focused, I suspect generally the tables where wizards find a way to optimize defense so they can survive or thrive a bumrush are also the tables where they probably need to.
AC doesn’t represent just armor. It also represents your ability to dodge and evade. It also can be improved via magic. A force field around you like shield, or shield of faith. What gave you the idea that AC was actually just physical armor. That doesn’t make sense at all if it was. Dexterity wouldn’t be the AC stat if it was just physical Armor. Come on people!!!
AC doesn’t represent just armor. It also represents your ability to dodge and evade. It also can be improved via magic. A force field around you like shield, or shield of faith. What gave you the idea that AC was actually just physical armor. That doesn’t make sense at all if it was. Dexterity wouldn’t be the AC stat if it was just physical Armor. Come on people!!!
But in the case of heavy armor it just is the armor which is why using Ac feels weird for a grapple and again how touch AC came to be in 3e, it just makes much more sense. Its also adds a layer of mechanical complexity and the only gain is a bit of verisimilitude so whether that is worth it is debatable. A save vs str is both easy and makes more sense.
I know the conversation may have somewhat moved on, but let me say another thing about Shield; Shield is not necessarily more effective with more, harder combats. Shield is more effective against more powerful attacks. In short, numerous times, you can spend a level 1 spell slot to save yourself 30 damage from one high-powered attack. If you don't think the trade-off is worth it, you don't have to use Shield.
Shield may be somewhat of a "slot grabber," but overall, it is a great spell. How much you use it can depend on the combat, so using it 3 times in one combat is actually not that absurd, depending on the situation. Every spell has its trade-offs, and Shield's trade-off is that it takes a slot. But Shield is only a problem if you use it an absurd amount of times. Every spell costs spell slots, and that doesn't mean the spell is bad, it just means you shouldn't use the spell every 5 seconds.
Should I start saying Wish is underpowered because it uses a 9th level spell slot? No, every spell has a cost and you can't blame the spell for a player wasting their uses of it. Every spell costs something to use, and Shield is no exception to that rule. You can take Shield and not use it once until the clutch time where it saves you from the BBEG's super-mega gazzilion damage dealing recharge attack. You can use Shield as much or as little as you want, and sometimes you may need to use 3 times in a combat, and in others you may need to use it 0.
But Shield is a great option to have, whether or not you use it. And honestly, anyone who thinks there will be cover or some other way for the bad guys not to run up and smack you in the combat, save the DM's mercy, is someone who is overly reliant on DM's spending hours of their free time to insert survival mechanisms into every single situation. Shield can be your cover though. Every time. Quite frankly, Shield should be a 2nd level spell minimum.
AC doesn’t represent just armor. It also represents your ability to dodge and evade. It also can be improved via magic. A force field around you like shield, or shield of faith. What gave you the idea that AC was actually just physical armor. That doesn’t make sense at all if it was. Dexterity wouldn’t be the AC stat if it was just physical Armor. Come on people!!!
But in the case of heavy armor it just is the armor which is why using Ac feels weird for a grapple and again how touch AC came to be in 3e, it just makes much more sense. Its also adds a layer of mechanical complexity and the only gain is a bit of verisimilitude so whether that is worth it is debatable. A save vs str is both easy and makes more sense.
Technically what’s weird is that they got rid of things like touch AC, but it was done for simplicity. Also armor could make you harder to grab, and so could a physical shield. A strength save doesn’t make more sense it’s just another simplified option that doesn’t cover all possibilities. What if you never touch the person you are trying to grapple? How is that a Str save? Maybe it’s a Dex save. As an real life folk style wrestler with some training in BJJ and military CQC I could make a strong argument it should be a Wis save. I won’t make that argument. Any one of them is fine, but over simplified. I think AC is the simplest and allows the player to roll.
How much you use it can depend on the combat, so using it 3 times in one combat is actually not that absurd, depending on the situation.
Well the combat in question was a 13-round combat and I burned 9 spell slots in it plus 2 once a day castings. So yeah, shiled was like a quarter of my castings.
AC doesn’t represent just armor. It also represents your ability to dodge and evade. It also can be improved via magic. A force field around you like shield, or shield of faith. What gave you the idea that AC was actually just physical armor. That doesn’t make sense at all if it was. Dexterity wouldn’t be the AC stat if it was just physical Armor. Come on people!!!
But in the case of heavy armor it just is the armor which is why using Ac feels weird for a grapple and again how touch AC came to be in 3e, it just makes much more sense. Its also adds a layer of mechanical complexity and the only gain is a bit of verisimilitude so whether that is worth it is debatable. A save vs str is both easy and makes more sense.
Technically what’s weird is that they got rid of things like touch AC, but it was done for simplicity. Also armor could make you harder to grab, and so could a physical shield. A strength save doesn’t make more sense it’s just another simplified option that doesn’t cover all possibilities. What if you never touch the person you are trying to grapple? How is that a Str save? Maybe it’s a Dex save. As an real life folk style wrestler with some training in BJJ and military CQC I could make a strong argument it should be a Wis save. I won’t make that argument. Any one of them is fine, but over simplified. I think AC is the simplest and allows the player to roll.
I said save vs strength as its what sets the Dc is strength.
Id say use dex or strength for making the save victims choice.
And AC may be the simplest but it makes less sense than a save imo, and its not that much simpler if any than someone making a save. Like I've said in play testing I've pulled in some really weird feeling results with the target AC method. It may not feel weird to you, but for me it really felt off and I don't think it works very well. Some of the easiest targets to grapple and well shove since it uses the same mechanic were ones it made the least sense for. Can I come up with excuses for why it works, sure but you always know you are just coming up with excuses for something that feels off.
I'm okay with it not being a skill check as it might make experts the best wrestlers instead of warriors, but the attack roll just didn't sit right. I initially was for it, but the more we play tested it the weirder it felt.
AC doesn’t represent just armor. It also represents your ability to dodge and evade. It also can be improved via magic. A force field around you like shield, or shield of faith. What gave you the idea that AC was actually just physical armor. That doesn’t make sense at all if it was. Dexterity wouldn’t be the AC stat if it was just physical Armor. Come on people!!!
But in the case of heavy armor it just is the armor which is why using Ac feels weird for a grapple and again how touch AC came to be in 3e, it just makes much more sense. Its also adds a layer of mechanical complexity and the only gain is a bit of verisimilitude so whether that is worth it is debatable. A save vs str is both easy and makes more sense.
Technically what’s weird is that they got rid of things like touch AC, but it was done for simplicity. Also armor could make you harder to grab, and so could a physical shield. A strength save doesn’t make more sense it’s just another simplified option that doesn’t cover all possibilities. What if you never touch the person you are trying to grapple? How is that a Str save? Maybe it’s a Dex save. As an real life folk style wrestler with some training in BJJ and military CQC I could make a strong argument it should be a Wis save. I won’t make that argument. Any one of them is fine, but over simplified. I think AC is the simplest and allows the player to roll.
I said save vs strength as its what sets the Dc is strength.
Id say use dex or strength for making the save victims choice.
And AC may be the simplest but it makes less sense than a save imo, and its not that much simpler if any than someone making a save. Like I've said in play testing I've pulled in some really weird feeling results with the target AC method. It may not feel weird to you, but for me it really felt off and I don't think it works very well. Some of the easiest targets to grapple and well shove since it uses the same mechanic were ones it made the least sense for. Can I come up with excuses for why it works, sure but you always know you are just coming up with excuses for something that feels off.
I'm okay with it not being a skill check as it might make experts the best wrestlers instead of warriors, but the attack roll just didn't sit right. I initially was for it, but the more we play tested it the weirder it felt.
This may be the difference on how people view attack rolls. SPECIFICALLY it is an unarmed attack roll. I personally never see an attack roll as a single attack was made, I see it as a series of attacks and in that series of attacks and parries they saw ONE moment (or in the case of extra attack 2 moments) that had a real chance of getting past the opponents guard. Unarmed strikes and grappling is no different for me. they find that one moment to get the opponent in a hold that the person now needs to save against to get out of.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree, why would shield be able to block a punch or kick, but not a grab?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Because physical armor in itself seems like a weird defense against a grab. I get its abstract but sometimes a layer of complexity like 3es touch AC just makes more sense.
AC working to stop a grapple doesn't; it should probably just be a save, and if you want spells like shield to help, have them give a save bonus.
Yeah this was probably the most disappointing parts for one of my players during the first playtest I ran. His barbarian failed a grapple roll he should have easily made because the skeleton had armor on. It didn't make sense and wasn't satisfying. He just wanted to body slam the last one of them to finish the fight. I let him do it anyway because the roll would have succeed in the current rules, and I quickly decided something had to change. I don't want to overcomplicate things either, but this version kind of sucks.
I hear you. I wish there was some middle ground between the 5E "your armor class is your armor class" and having 5 or 6 circumstantial armor classes like in 3.0/3.5.
It goes the other way as well. I had a 8 strength wizard grapple a ogre because even with the penalty to hit with his crap strength he could reasonably hit a low AC giant type. In theory he could have pulled it off in 5e but he would both have to roll good and the ogre bad. He was mounted so he was able to drag it a decent distance as well. Not sure if the slowed effect should apply to the steed but that is what I went with. Its a weird effect on all sides.
I mean, the best way is to probably make Grapples an Attack Roll vs Dex Save, but then we're back to contested rolls, which I've heard from these forums, that WoTC is trying to eliminate so...
You could maybe drop the attack roll entirely and make it a either str/dex save victims choice vs your str DC. Not sure that would work or not. But I can say the more we tested this grapple mechanic the weirder the results. Its not inherently bad, like its quick and easy but it has some weird results.
That's pretty clearly the thing that's the most 'standard' mechanic other than AC.
I would generally agree with this statement, but the flip side is that in 5E it is very easy to make a wizard that can survive being bumrushed, or even make a wizard that will thrive in melee.
If they bumrush a Bladesinger they are doing exactly what the party wants them to do, and just about any wizard with shield, mage armor and misty step is going to do ok getting bumrushed and having enemies waste actions and take AOOs to get to the wizard is going to be favorable to the party in such a situation.
You can build a truly frail wizard in 5E, but that is a player choice more than anything else.
As far as grapple, I like the 5E rules and do not like the ONE rules. I would be ok with adding a rider to shield that gives a +5 to athletics or acrobatics to avoid a grapple or shove.
What would be the absolute worst mechanic though would be going to some kind of 3E design where you have a different AC for weapon attacks and touch attacks (like grappling).
It is possible to build a tougher wizard but usually its a bit resource expensive outside maybe the bladesinger. Like sure, yes shield, mage armor etc, but a wizard can quickly burn through all their 1st and 2nd level spells when being pressured at most the levels people play at. Which is sort of where the discussion started, not so much that wizards will die but that they may be needing to cast shield a lot. Some saying they rarely have to as they just hang back. It is very table focused, I suspect generally the tables where wizards find a way to optimize defense so they can survive or thrive a bumrush are also the tables where they probably need to.
AC doesn’t represent just armor. It also represents your ability to dodge and evade. It also can be improved via magic. A force field around you like shield, or shield of faith. What gave you the idea that AC was actually just physical armor. That doesn’t make sense at all if it was. Dexterity wouldn’t be the AC stat if it was just physical Armor. Come on people!!!
But in the case of heavy armor it just is the armor which is why using Ac feels weird for a grapple and again how touch AC came to be in 3e, it just makes much more sense. Its also adds a layer of mechanical complexity and the only gain is a bit of verisimilitude so whether that is worth it is debatable. A save vs str is both easy and makes more sense.
I know the conversation may have somewhat moved on, but let me say another thing about Shield; Shield is not necessarily more effective with more, harder combats. Shield is more effective against more powerful attacks. In short, numerous times, you can spend a level 1 spell slot to save yourself 30 damage from one high-powered attack. If you don't think the trade-off is worth it, you don't have to use Shield.
Shield may be somewhat of a "slot grabber," but overall, it is a great spell. How much you use it can depend on the combat, so using it 3 times in one combat is actually not that absurd, depending on the situation. Every spell has its trade-offs, and Shield's trade-off is that it takes a slot. But Shield is only a problem if you use it an absurd amount of times. Every spell costs spell slots, and that doesn't mean the spell is bad, it just means you shouldn't use the spell every 5 seconds.
Should I start saying Wish is underpowered because it uses a 9th level spell slot? No, every spell has a cost and you can't blame the spell for a player wasting their uses of it. Every spell costs something to use, and Shield is no exception to that rule. You can take Shield and not use it once until the clutch time where it saves you from the BBEG's super-mega gazzilion damage dealing recharge attack. You can use Shield as much or as little as you want, and sometimes you may need to use 3 times in a combat, and in others you may need to use it 0.
But Shield is a great option to have, whether or not you use it. And honestly, anyone who thinks there will be cover or some other way for the bad guys not to run up and smack you in the combat, save the DM's mercy, is someone who is overly reliant on DM's spending hours of their free time to insert survival mechanisms into every single situation. Shield can be your cover though. Every time. Quite frankly, Shield should be a 2nd level spell minimum.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Technically what’s weird is that they got rid of things like touch AC, but it was done for simplicity. Also armor could make you harder to grab, and so could a physical shield. A strength save doesn’t make more sense it’s just another simplified option that doesn’t cover all possibilities. What if you never touch the person you are trying to grapple? How is that a Str save? Maybe it’s a Dex save. As an real life folk style wrestler with some training in BJJ and military CQC I could make a strong argument it should be a Wis save. I won’t make that argument. Any one of them is fine, but over simplified. I think AC is the simplest and allows the player to roll.
probably or it could be weakened. + Ac vs first attack like the various parry moves, +ac equal to proficiency bonus, +2AC +1AC per spell level etc.
edit to add or maybe go war mage and add the rider that in your next action you can only cast a cantrip if casting a spell as an action.
Well the combat in question was a 13-round combat and I burned 9 spell slots in it plus 2 once a day castings. So yeah, shiled was like a quarter of my castings.
I said save vs strength as its what sets the Dc is strength.
Id say use dex or strength for making the save victims choice.
And AC may be the simplest but it makes less sense than a save imo, and its not that much simpler if any than someone making a save. Like I've said in play testing I've pulled in some really weird feeling results with the target AC method. It may not feel weird to you, but for me it really felt off and I don't think it works very well. Some of the easiest targets to grapple and well shove since it uses the same mechanic were ones it made the least sense for. Can I come up with excuses for why it works, sure but you always know you are just coming up with excuses for something that feels off.
I'm okay with it not being a skill check as it might make experts the best wrestlers instead of warriors, but the attack roll just didn't sit right. I initially was for it, but the more we play tested it the weirder it felt.
This may be the difference on how people view attack rolls. SPECIFICALLY it is an unarmed attack roll. I personally never see an attack roll as a single attack was made, I see it as a series of attacks and in that series of attacks and parries they saw ONE moment (or in the case of extra attack 2 moments) that had a real chance of getting past the opponents guard. Unarmed strikes and grappling is no different for me. they find that one moment to get the opponent in a hold that the person now needs to save against to get out of.