I don't think it's way too strong. It's a good scaled-down shield spell both in cost and in function. I think it's a good addition to a low-level caster's list.
My sense about this is that I don't think it's overpowered, at least as written, but I do think that it will produce an annoying slow-down of the game because it means that every time an attack is made, the DM (or player, if the spell is being cast by an NPC) has to give the target an opportunity to react before rolling to hit.
My sense about this is that I don't think it's overpowered, at least as written, but I do think that it will produce an annoying slow-down of the game because it means that every time an attack is made, the DM (or player, if the spell is being cast by an NPC) has to give the target an opportunity to react before rolling to hit.
I get what you are saying, and that is RAW, but I think gameplay efficiency will trump RAW at most tables, and they will just make the attack roll and the spell only gets cast when the attack hits, then retroactively impose disadvantage if the reaction is taken. That's how I plan to run it at any rate.
My sense about this is that I don't think it's overpowered, at least as written, but I do think that it will produce an annoying slow-down of the game because it means that every time an attack is made, the DM (or player, if the spell is being cast by an NPC) has to give the target an opportunity to react before rolling to hit.
I get what you are saying, and that is RAW, but I think gameplay efficiency will trump RAW at most tables, and they will just make the attack roll and the spell only gets cast when the attack hits, then retroactively impose disadvantage if the reaction is taken. That's how I plan to run it at any rate.
I usually say and he attacks "xyz" then roll the die behind my screen. Between the time of announcement dice roll and before announcing the number they can say something and I roll another die.
I get what you are saying, and that is RAW, but I think gameplay efficiency will trump RAW at most tables, and they will just make the attack roll and the spell only gets cast when the attack hits, then retroactively impose disadvantage if the reaction is taken. That's how I plan to run it at any rate.
Doing it that way is much better than RAW and does make it overpowered. The main reason it's currently not overpowered is because there's a significant chance that you waste it on an attack that missed (this is particularly significant for high AC casters).
A post-attack roll that would be reasonable and comparable in power to other cantrips might be "add 1d4 AC against a single attack". Another option would be damage prevention, something like 1d4 or 1d6 damage per tier.
I get what you are saying, and that is RAW, but I think gameplay efficiency will trump RAW at most tables, and they will just make the attack roll and the spell only gets cast when the attack hits, then retroactively impose disadvantage if the reaction is taken. That's how I plan to run it at any rate.
Doing it that way is much better than RAW and does make it overpowered. The main reason it's currently not overpowered is because there's a significant chance that you waste it on an attack that missed (this is particularly significant for high AC casters).
A post-attack roll that would be reasonable and comparable in power to other cantrips might be "add 1d4 AC against a single attack". Another option would be damage prevention, something like 1d4 or 1d6 damage per tier.
TBH If I allow it at my table, I'm just going to assume the caster that has it always uses it for the first attack against them unless they specifically state otherwise on their turn.
I also forgot that most DMs roll behind a screen until Aquilontune reminded me.
Certainly "some" DMs roll behind a screen, but I'm not at all convinced it's "most".
Agreed -- "most" has no real data to support it.
That said, I note that the majority of popular Vtts have a way for the DM to roll dice that are not visible to players, and that this is often turned on by default -- or cannot be turned off. So it is likely enough to make that a common approach (based on core principles, it is at least 40% of the greater population of those who play the game) -- and then I have to note that originally the direction within the game was to roll dice behind a cover, so it was the default for the majority of the game's existence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Spell is fine. Reactions are a resource meant to be used. Getting upset that casters might actually get a valid reaction that doesn't cost them anything but an exceptionally valuable known-cantrip slot doesn't make any sense. People freak out like this every single time spellcasters get a reaction spell.
Nobody complains that martials get "free" reactions with attacks of opportunity, and anyone who tries to argue that "casters can make AoOs too!" is being deliberately obtuse. Imposing disadvantage on one attack one time does largely nothing against extremely common Multiattack barrages, or against multiple attackers. Spell does dick monkey bupkis against ranged attacks, which is the type of attack a backline mage is most likely to be targeted by in the first place.
It's no more a "must pick" than Fire Bolt or whatever the 'best' attacky cantrip is. Will combat-oriented players who focus on battle spellcasting strongly favor it? Sure - but those players deserve cool tools that're fun for them to use as much as the Roleplaying Thespians do.
Nobody complains that martials get "free" reactions with attacks of opportunity.
AoO are far from guaranteed every round. On average, I see martials get an AoO only once out of every two combats. If the design principle going forward is that "reactions are meant to be used" then Attacks of Opportunity need to be triggered more often e.g.
If a creature within your reach misses with an attack roll
If a creature within your reach casts a spell
If a creature within your reach willing moves at least 5ft, if this movement causes them to move out of your reach you make your AoO prior to them leaving your reach.
My main problem is that the Earth Genasi from Monsters of the Multiverse got a good version of Blade Ward, and this kinda nerfs that. Although, I guess simply rewording the Earth Genasi to be an ability rather than the casting of a spell would be a straightforward fix.
Spell is fine. Reactions are a resource meant to be used.
This is how I see it as well. Everyone has the most fun when there is an action, a bonus action, and a reaction to be used every round. And if there are multiple reactions competing to be used, then so much the better.
I think people are also forgetting resistance is a reaction now and so is guidance. + subclass features. There are a lot of things competing for a caster's reaction.
Spell is fine. Reactions are a resource meant to be used. Getting upset that casters might actually get a valid reaction that doesn't cost them anything but an exceptionally valuable known-cantrip slot doesn't make any sense. People freak out like this every single time spellcasters get a reaction spell.
That's what I've been thinking about since this was released, too. And since Magic Initiate is a 1st-level feat, everyone can potentially pick up Resistance and Blade Ward to help shore up their defenses in combat. If anything, martials have more incentive to pick up these spells than casters do.
And the fact that cantrips are unlimited use means there will likely be a lot more back-and-forth in combat. Players will more often get to say "Hold on, I have something for that" which is just more fun and dramatic.
And the fact that cantrips are unlimited use means there will likely be a lot more back-and-forth in combat. Players will more often get to say "Hold on, I have something for that" which is just more fun and dramatic.
You say that, but I reckon Rogue players are going to be super pissed when the DM gets to say "Actually you don't get sneak attack because the enemy uses Blade Ward."
This could be converted to a bonus action spell, such as
Blade Ward (bonus): the next melee attack against you before the start of your next turn has disadvantage.
That's clearly worse because it interferes with main action spellcasting and becomes moot if nothing attacks you, but it's more usable than the 2014 version and avoids the reaction timing issues.
Shield gives a +5 to your AC until the start of your next turn and gives immunity to Magic Missile.
That being said I think damage reduction against attacks would be better. Like it starts at 1d6 then 1d8 at 5th, 1d10 at 11th, and 1d12 at 17th.
To me this seems insanely powered and also scales insanely well. Both Shield and Silvery are some of the most powerful spells in the game, and they're first level ones too. Unless you have something better to use as a reaction, Blade Ward can be used basically every round for no cost and a pretty decent effect. I would literally just take a feat for it if I were a Warrior, and damage reduction would be a great way to rebalance it, because it shouldn't be allowed to go through as is.
This is only my initial take on the spell though, so ya never know and my mind could obviously completely change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
And the fact that cantrips are unlimited use means there will likely be a lot more back-and-forth in combat. Players will more often get to say "Hold on, I have something for that" which is just more fun and dramatic.
You say that, but I reckon Rogue players are going to be super pissed when the DM gets to say "Actually you don't get sneak attack because the enemy uses Blade Ward."
That's fair. The fact Blade Ward is a counter to sneak attack probably needs to be addressed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Useless vs hidden/Invisible/surprise attacks.
I don't think it's way too strong. It's a good scaled-down shield spell both in cost and in function. I think it's a good addition to a low-level caster's list.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
My sense about this is that I don't think it's overpowered, at least as written, but I do think that it will produce an annoying slow-down of the game because it means that every time an attack is made, the DM (or player, if the spell is being cast by an NPC) has to give the target an opportunity to react before rolling to hit.
I get what you are saying, and that is RAW, but I think gameplay efficiency will trump RAW at most tables, and they will just make the attack roll and the spell only gets cast when the attack hits, then retroactively impose disadvantage if the reaction is taken. That's how I plan to run it at any rate.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I usually say and he attacks "xyz" then roll the die behind my screen. Between the time of announcement dice roll and before announcing the number they can say something and I roll another die.
Doing it that way is much better than RAW and does make it overpowered. The main reason it's currently not overpowered is because there's a significant chance that you waste it on an attack that missed (this is particularly significant for high AC casters).
A post-attack roll that would be reasonable and comparable in power to other cantrips might be "add 1d4 AC against a single attack". Another option would be damage prevention, something like 1d4 or 1d6 damage per tier.
I also forgot that most DMs roll behind a screen until Aquilontune reminded me.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Certainly "some" DMs roll behind a screen, but I'm not at all convinced it's "most".
TBH If I allow it at my table, I'm just going to assume the caster that has it always uses it for the first attack against them unless they specifically state otherwise on their turn.
Agreed -- "most" has no real data to support it.
That said, I note that the majority of popular Vtts have a way for the DM to roll dice that are not visible to players, and that this is often turned on by default -- or cannot be turned off. So it is likely enough to make that a common approach (based on core principles, it is at least 40% of the greater population of those who play the game) -- and then I have to note that originally the direction within the game was to roll dice behind a cover, so it was the default for the majority of the game's existence.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Spell is fine. Reactions are a resource meant to be used. Getting upset that casters might actually get a valid reaction that doesn't cost them anything but an exceptionally valuable known-cantrip slot doesn't make any sense. People freak out like this every single time spellcasters get a reaction spell.
Nobody complains that martials get "free" reactions with attacks of opportunity, and anyone who tries to argue that "casters can make AoOs too!" is being deliberately obtuse. Imposing disadvantage on one attack one time does largely nothing against extremely common Multiattack barrages, or against multiple attackers. Spell does dick monkey bupkis against ranged attacks, which is the type of attack a backline mage is most likely to be targeted by in the first place.
It's no more a "must pick" than Fire Bolt or whatever the 'best' attacky cantrip is. Will combat-oriented players who focus on battle spellcasting strongly favor it? Sure - but those players deserve cool tools that're fun for them to use as much as the Roleplaying Thespians do.
Please do not contact or message me.
AoO are far from guaranteed every round. On average, I see martials get an AoO only once out of every two combats. If the design principle going forward is that "reactions are meant to be used" then Attacks of Opportunity need to be triggered more often e.g.
My main problem is that the Earth Genasi from Monsters of the Multiverse got a good version of Blade Ward, and this kinda nerfs that. Although, I guess simply rewording the Earth Genasi to be an ability rather than the casting of a spell would be a straightforward fix.
This is how I see it as well. Everyone has the most fun when there is an action, a bonus action, and a reaction to be used every round. And if there are multiple reactions competing to be used, then so much the better.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think people are also forgetting resistance is a reaction now and so is guidance. + subclass features. There are a lot of things competing for a caster's reaction.
That's what I've been thinking about since this was released, too. And since Magic Initiate is a 1st-level feat, everyone can potentially pick up Resistance and Blade Ward to help shore up their defenses in combat. If anything, martials have more incentive to pick up these spells than casters do.
And the fact that cantrips are unlimited use means there will likely be a lot more back-and-forth in combat. Players will more often get to say "Hold on, I have something for that" which is just more fun and dramatic.
You say that, but I reckon Rogue players are going to be super pissed when the DM gets to say "Actually you don't get sneak attack because the enemy uses Blade Ward."
This could be converted to a bonus action spell, such as
That's clearly worse because it interferes with main action spellcasting and becomes moot if nothing attacks you, but it's more usable than the 2014 version and avoids the reaction timing issues.
To me this seems insanely powered and also scales insanely well. Both Shield and Silvery are some of the most powerful spells in the game, and they're first level ones too. Unless you have something better to use as a reaction, Blade Ward can be used basically every round for no cost and a pretty decent effect. I would literally just take a feat for it if I were a Warrior, and damage reduction would be a great way to rebalance it, because it shouldn't be allowed to go through as is.
This is only my initial take on the spell though, so ya never know and my mind could obviously completely change.
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.That's fair. The fact Blade Ward is a counter to sneak attack probably needs to be addressed.