At first blush I thought it was really strong, but it being melee only and working on only one attack does mitigate that.
The ability to negate a crit is really nice though, and is functionality that even Shield doesn't confer.
The condition for the reaction to be used and cast blade ward is when something targets you. That means you have to use it before the attack roll is called officially. So you cannot negate a crit unless you happen to call it ahead of time before you know it's a Crit.
True, but it still can negate some crits. Shield is completely powerless against any of them. due to the fact that they authohit and the spell only boosts your AC.
So shield is powerless against crits but the cantrip isn't.. how is that a problem?
What does BW do against an invis attacker, shield works
What does BW do against a monster that's attacking with disadvantage already? shield works
What does BW do against a monster tossing 5 attacks at you? shield works on all of them
What does BW do to stop magic missiles, spell attacks or bows, crossbows, thrown boulders or any other ranged attack? shield works
What use is BW when the monster would of missed without it anyway? shield wouldn't of eaten your reaction that can be used for counterspell OR another attack later in the turn.
And there's just.. many other situations where shield is superior to BW... but yes if a monster attacks AND you use BW AND one of those dice is a 20, AND we're assuming that that is the first die that would of been rolled and not the second die. than yes you averted a crit where shield wouldn't of helped ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kinda hitting this territory of "Firebolt is to strong because if you have a portent 20 saved it's going to auto hit AND deal double damage where a spell like force cage would still allow a monster to make a save"
How do you reckon that? At level 5, AC 16 = 50% chance the enemy hit = 25% chance for Blade Ward to turn a hit into a miss. A 50% reduction in damage taken is pretty damn good for a cantrip.
It's nowhere near 50%; at level 5 you're almost certainly being attacked multiple times, either because multiattack or multiple foes, and it only applies to one of those attacks. Also, it doesn't apply at all against ranged attacks, and if the monster had advantage for some reason, going from advantage to no advantage isn't -50%.
Almost all monsters prefer melee to ranged so we all know ranged attacks aren't very common (otherwise the monk's Defect Missiles would be an amazing defense feature). Assuming you're a squishy caster (as this is a spell that is limited to arcane casters) it's unlikely you're standing on the frontlines surrounded by enemies, so I'd expect 2 melee attacks per round. In which case, with no advantage Blade Ward = 25% reduction in damage taken, if the enemy had advantage then it works out to 17% reduction in damage taken. Those are still pretty sweet numbers for a cantrip. Compare this to Shield: no advantage = 50% reduction in damage taken, if the enemy had advantage then 43% reduction in damage taken.
At first blush I thought it was really strong, but it being melee only and working on only one attack does mitigate that.
The ability to negate a crit is really nice though, and is functionality that even Shield doesn't confer.
The condition for the reaction to be used and cast blade ward is when something targets you. That means you have to use it before the attack roll is called officially. So you cannot negate a crit unless you happen to call it ahead of time before you know it's a Crit.
True, but it still can negate some crits. Shield is completely powerless against any of them. due to the fact that they authohit and the spell only boosts your AC.
By that logic, any effect that imposes disadvantage is more powerful than Shield. It doesn't matter if shield lasts until your next turn. If something imposes disadvantage on a single attack, it makes it more powerful than shield. Well, it's your opinion. But of course I don't agree at all.
One benefit is (Nerd Immersion pointed this out) if you know a rogue is sneak attacking you because they have advantage (or ally in range) you can cancel that sneak attack.
It's not overpowered, but it does need clearer language. My assumption is that it imposes on the first swing/attack, but it could be argued because the text isn't as precise as it should be.
If a blackguard NPC gets within reach of my wizard and swings, does blade ward impose disadvantage on all three attack rolls or just the first? Again, my assumption is the latter but I can easily see players making an argument for the former based on the wording we get here.
And I agree that the 2014 blade ward is useless. It's a defensive, reactive spell, and is much better categorized as a reaction spell.
I think it's fine. Only one attack, only melee, have to use it before knowing if it was worth using it. etc Definitely more usefull overall though. But i think holding your reaction for shield (assuming it even doesn't change which i guess is unlikely) will still be better overall Only thing that bothers me a bit is how much of a kick to the shin against rogues this is. No sneak attack allowed!
At first blush I thought it was really strong, but it being melee only and working on only one attack does mitigate that.
The ability to negate a crit is really nice though, and is functionality that even Shield doesn't confer.
The condition for the reaction to be used and cast blade ward is when something targets you. That means you have to use it before the attack roll is called officially. So you cannot negate a crit unless you happen to call it ahead of time before you know it's a Crit.
True, but it still can negate some crits. Shield is completely powerless against any of them. due to the fact that they authohit and the spell only boosts your AC.
By that logic, any effect that imposes disadvantage is more powerful than Shield. It doesn't matter if shield lasts until your next turn. If something imposes disadvantage on a single attack, it makes it more powerful than shield. Well, it's your opinion. But of course I don't agree at all.
My point wasn't that the ability to negate some crits automatically makes Blade Ward better than Shield. All I said is that this is a relevant factor when comparing the two spells' effects.
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.
I don't think the new blade ward is nearly as broken as shield. Bear in mind, shield gives +5AC until your next turn, this doesn't do that. Also, shield can be used in response to ranged attacks as well, while this is limited to melee. I feel like if they are going to balance these two, shield should be used for ranged attacks and blade ward for melee. I feel like that's an easy change to limit both of them.
I don't think the new blade ward is nearly as broken as shield. Bear in mind, shield gives +5AC until your next turn, this doesn't do that. Also, shield can be used in response to ranged attacks as well, while this is limited to melee. I feel like if they are going to balance these two, shield should be used for ranged attacks and blade ward for melee. I feel like that's an easy change to limit both of them.
Not being as broken as a widely accepted broken spell doesn't make the spell ok.
BLADE WARD Abjuration Cantrip (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) Casting Time: Reaction, which you take in response to a visible creature targeting you with a melee attack. all attacks from one attacker till start of your next turn Range: Self Components: V, S Duration: Instantaneous
You trace a sigil of warding, imposing Disadvantage on the creature’s attack roll against you. attack rolls against you till the start of your next turn.
or
You trace a sigil of warding, imposing Resistance to all damage from the melee attack.
---------------------------------
Also why is this just limited melee attack? You are setting up a ward that can stop a sword but not an arrow?
only works for one attack from one attacker. must be a melee attack. imposes disadvantage (or removes advantage). also, you must see the strike coming (attacker wasn't hidden/invisible) which does not reflect many sneak attack attempts.
more of a boon to rp than a new reason to be on the front lines. seems fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
The concern to me is about using this cantrip when the party is low level, where usually the enemies aren't so powerful so the enemy is going to attack at disadvantage each turn.
Also, it works as a reaction. Explosive combination.
I suppose my only thought is that magic using folks are usually asked to use their magic to protect themselves in battle since they normally cannot wear armor. This magic allows them to have a decent defense, and you are not happy. Do you want them to hide behind the fighter or something?
My math suggests that it is fine at low levels and almost useless at high levels. Sounds like a cantrip to me...
The concern to me is about using this cantrip when the party is low level, where usually the enemies aren't so powerful so the enemy is going to attack at disadvantage each turn.
Also, it works as a reaction. Explosive combination.
that's when the dm begins accustoming players to different possible scenarios. like, fast enemies who flit back and forth, leaving the strange monsters open to many attacks of opportunity (reaction). later perhaps a few nasty monsters throw rocks from a tree (non-melee attack). and maybe when crossing a rickety bridge an arm reaches out to scratch at ankles (unseen attack).
last, perhaps they face a spellcaster who uses blade ward. then they can gang up on it, catch their foe in attacks of opportunity as it runs between levers/glyphs/objectives, shoot at them from a convenient balcony, and sneak up behind them too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Low levels when getting hit with one attack. I can see using this. Higher levels when creatures have multi attacks. Less helpful Cantrip to make one attack made against wizard at disadvantage or a Shield spell to increase AC by 5 till start of next turn to protect from multiple attacks.
Add some scaling usage to this. It is a bit situational at higher levels.
Also, no added protection vs Melee spell attacks or archers or enemy spell casters.
The concern to me is about using this cantrip when the party is low level, where usually the enemies aren't so powerful so the enemy is going to attack at disadvantage each turn.
Also, it works as a reaction. Explosive combination.
It's still a singular attack and it must be a melee one.
If your wizard is in the back of the group like they typically are the most common attack they are going to eat is ranged attacks which BW does nothing against. If they get flanked by a singular monster with 1 attack than yes the BW will see usage that will dramatically increase that wizards chance of survival. I don't think that's going to be the most common scenario though. Getting hit by a sling or shortbow or a spell attack is more likely and BW isn't going to help against it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So shield is powerless against crits but the cantrip isn't.. how is that a problem?
What does BW do against an invis attacker, shield works
What does BW do against a monster that's attacking with disadvantage already? shield works
What does BW do against a monster tossing 5 attacks at you? shield works on all of them
What does BW do to stop magic missiles, spell attacks or bows, crossbows, thrown boulders or any other ranged attack? shield works
What use is BW when the monster would of missed without it anyway? shield wouldn't of eaten your reaction that can be used for counterspell OR another attack later in the turn.
And there's just.. many other situations where shield is superior to BW... but yes if a monster attacks AND you use BW AND one of those dice is a 20, AND we're assuming that that is the first die that would of been rolled and not the second die. than yes you averted a crit where shield wouldn't of helped ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kinda hitting this territory of "Firebolt is to strong because if you have a portent 20 saved it's going to auto hit AND deal double damage where a spell like force cage would still allow a monster to make a save"
Almost all monsters prefer melee to ranged so we all know ranged attacks aren't very common (otherwise the monk's Defect Missiles would be an amazing defense feature). Assuming you're a squishy caster (as this is a spell that is limited to arcane casters) it's unlikely you're standing on the frontlines surrounded by enemies, so I'd expect 2 melee attacks per round. In which case, with no advantage Blade Ward = 25% reduction in damage taken, if the enemy had advantage then it works out to 17% reduction in damage taken. Those are still pretty sweet numbers for a cantrip. Compare this to Shield: no advantage = 50% reduction in damage taken, if the enemy had advantage then 43% reduction in damage taken.
By that logic, any effect that imposes disadvantage is more powerful than Shield.
It doesn't matter if shield lasts until your next turn. If something imposes disadvantage on a single attack, it makes it more powerful than shield.
Well, it's your opinion. But of course I don't agree at all.
One benefit is (Nerd Immersion pointed this out) if you know a rogue is sneak attacking you because they have advantage (or ally in range) you can cancel that sneak attack.
I think BW is fine.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
How does a character know he is being targeted?
In all my games the DM says this creature attacks me not this creature is targeting me. and then he attacks.
It's not overpowered, but it does need clearer language. My assumption is that it imposes on the first swing/attack, but it could be argued because the text isn't as precise as it should be.
If a blackguard NPC gets within reach of my wizard and swings, does blade ward impose disadvantage on all three attack rolls or just the first? Again, my assumption is the latter but I can easily see players making an argument for the former based on the wording we get here.
And I agree that the 2014 blade ward is useless. It's a defensive, reactive spell, and is much better categorized as a reaction spell.
I think it's fine. Only one attack, only melee, have to use it before knowing if it was worth using it. etc
Definitely more usefull overall though. But i think holding your reaction for shield (assuming it even doesn't change which i guess is unlikely) will still be better overall
Only thing that bothers me a bit is how much of a kick to the shin against rogues this is. No sneak attack allowed!
My point wasn't that the ability to negate some crits automatically makes Blade Ward better than Shield. All I said is that this is a relevant factor when comparing the two spells' effects.
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.For me, yes, it is too strong.
I guess WotC will receive many feedbacks about this change.
I don't think the new blade ward is nearly as broken as shield. Bear in mind, shield gives +5AC until your next turn, this doesn't do that. Also, shield can be used in response to ranged attacks as well, while this is limited to melee. I feel like if they are going to balance these two, shield should be used for ranged attacks and blade ward for melee. I feel like that's an easy change to limit both of them.
I'm only curious Tarodnet - Why is disadvantage imposed against a single melee attack so out of line for you?
Not being as broken as a widely accepted broken spell doesn't make the spell ok.
My thought on the spell
BLADE WARD
Abjuration Cantrip (Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard)
Casting Time: Reaction, which you take in response to
a visible creature targeting you with a melee attack.all attacks from one attacker till start of your next turnRange: Self
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
You trace a sigil of warding, imposing Disadvantage on the creature’s
attack roll against you. attack rolls against you till the start of your next turn.or
You trace a sigil of warding, imposing Resistance to all damage from the melee attack.
---------------------------------
Also why is this just limited melee attack? You are setting up a ward that can stop a sword but not an arrow?
only works for one attack from one attacker. must be a melee attack. imposes disadvantage (or removes advantage). also, you must see the strike coming (attacker wasn't hidden/invisible) which does not reflect many sneak attack attempts.
more of a boon to rp than a new reason to be on the front lines. seems fine.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
The concern to me is about using this cantrip when the party is low level, where usually the enemies aren't so powerful so the enemy is going to attack at disadvantage each turn.
Also, it works as a reaction. Explosive combination.
I suppose my only thought is that magic using folks are usually asked to use their magic to protect themselves in battle since they normally cannot wear armor. This magic allows them to have a decent defense, and you are not happy. Do you want them to hide behind the fighter or something?
My math suggests that it is fine at low levels and almost useless at high levels. Sounds like a cantrip to me...
that's when the dm begins accustoming players to different possible scenarios. like, fast enemies who flit back and forth, leaving the strange monsters open to many attacks of opportunity (reaction). later perhaps a few nasty monsters throw rocks from a tree (non-melee attack). and maybe when crossing a rickety bridge an arm reaches out to scratch at ankles (unseen attack).
last, perhaps they face a spellcaster who uses blade ward. then they can gang up on it, catch their foe in attacks of opportunity as it runs between levers/glyphs/objectives, shoot at them from a convenient balcony, and sneak up behind them too.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
>Do you want them to hide behind the fighter or something?
Good point, mate 😅
But yes, I agree with you in this line: "My math suggests that it is fine at low levels and almost useless at high levels."
Low levels when getting hit with one attack. I can see using this. Higher levels when creatures have multi attacks. Less helpful Cantrip to make one attack made against wizard at disadvantage or a Shield spell to increase AC by 5 till start of next turn to protect from multiple attacks.
Add some scaling usage to this. It is a bit situational at higher levels.
Also, no added protection vs Melee spell attacks or archers or enemy spell casters.
It's still a singular attack and it must be a melee one.
If your wizard is in the back of the group like they typically are the most common attack they are going to eat is ranged attacks which BW does nothing against. If they get flanked by a singular monster with 1 attack than yes the BW will see usage that will dramatically increase that wizards chance of survival. I don't think that's going to be the most common scenario though. Getting hit by a sling or shortbow or a spell attack is more likely and BW isn't going to help against it