Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 hallows1999 Aug 09, 2014 1:37:06	Is there anyone else that thinks this spell is a little wonky? I know there are other effects that can cause rerolls, but for some reason this one just seems weird.   I hit you   Wait, let me go back in time and cast a spell. Oops, now you missed.   I could see it blocking magic missles. The wizard recognizes the spell and throws up the spell, but casting a spell, even a reaction, to stop somethng that's already happened seems screwy
#2 reddaemon Aug 09, 2014 2:35:00	This is the way it worked in 4th edition.  It must have been pretty well received since they kept it in.  When they changed it in 4th edition, at first I didn't think it was a good idea, but after seeing it in action I believe it fits better to have it be a temporary defensive maneuver.  Think back to Lord of the Rings when Gandalf is fighting the Balrog.  The Balrog brings its giant sword down to smash Gandalf, but  a white translucent sphere erupts from him and blocks the sword.
(Reply to #2) hallows1999	reddaemon wrote:
#4 RCanine Aug 09, 2014 3:41:33	hallows1999 wrote:
#5 Timmee Aug 09, 2014 7:42:09	Remember though, a "reaction" interrupts the triggering effect. Or not, if so:   DM: The axe is coming down unerringly. It will strike unless you have some way to avoid it. PC: Dang right, I do. Shield! DM: Oh, snap. However, that only brings your AC up to 19. The orc rolled an adjusted 20 to hit, soooo....... ouch.
#6 Plaguescarred1 Aug 09, 2014 10:53:10	Its similar to the Immediate Interrupt action in 4E. the Shield will pop up as a reaction interrupting the action triggerring it before its completed. So you're not hit yet when you use Shield, you're about to be. Just like for Opportunity Attack, the creature didn't leave your reach yet when you make an Opportunity Attack against it, it's about to but still within your reach, otherwise she'd be out of reach for you to attack it.
(Reply to #5) reddaemon	Timmee wrote:
#8 RedSiegfried Aug 09, 2014 9:13:48	Timmee wrote:
(Reply to #8) hallows1999	RedSiegfried wrote:
#10 Sherman Aug 09, 2014 23:36:10	Houserule it. That's what you're asking for. Rules don't have two versions because they want people to be able to play with people they don't know. Playing second edition at a convention was essentially like playing a new game every time. That was fun sometimes (sometimes not), but I like knowing how things are going to work regardless of who is running, when you start giving two versions, you're putting a lot of work on the designers as they now have to balance twice as much, and you never know if what you think is the obvious choice is the same as the person running. It's your game, if you don't like it change it. Personally I think it's sweet, having a utility spell as a reaction is the best kind of utility spell. Having a shield that you cast and then go through an entire combat where you never get attacked is lame. The design team made an obvious effort to make sure that you felt like you got something awesome out of every casting, and when you cast shield to avoid getting creamed by an ogre I think that mission will feel successful.
(Reply to #10) hallows1999	Sherman wrote:
#12 Xuub Aug 10, 2014 10:56:10	Quick question regarding shield:   Can a sorcerer wielding a 2 Handed sword cast Shield as a reaction even though the spell requires a somatic component?
(Reply to #12) Overpromises	Xuub wrote:
#14 Xuub Aug 10, 2014 11:52:54	Overpromises wrote:
#15 mrpopstar Aug 10, 2014 12:06:17	Xuub wrote:
(Reply to #14) Overpromises	Xuub wrote:
#17 E-Tallitnics Aug 10, 2014 14:19:11	Overpromises wrote:
(Reply to #17) Overpromises	E-Tallitnics wrote:
#19 mrpopstar Aug 10, 2014 14:31:12	E-Tallitnics wrote:
#20 2Chlorobutanal Aug 10, 2014 18:23:18	I'd say that, without any feats or features, a wielded longsword or quarterstaff would allow a caster to react with shield or a "versatile" opportunity attack.   Some people may allow the caster to "take a hand off" a greatsword on their turn, opening up the option to react with a shield spell, but this would prevent the caster from making an attack with the weapon until their next turn.  Essentially, the sword would be "sheathed" for all intents and purposes until "drawn" again.   Without the War Caster feat, I would not allow a greatsword-wielding caster to react with a spell requiring somatic components.   One possible exception would be the case where the wielded weapon is a viable focus for the spellcaster, as a focus hand can be used in conjunction with somatic components.   For those who want to play a two-hander spellcaster, I would recommend versatile weapons or the War Caster feat, because they are conscious character-building decisions which add a lot of flavor to a character and preclude any ambiguity.
#21 mrpopstar Aug 10, 2014 19:48:53	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #21) 2Chlorobutanal	mrpopstar wrote:
#23 mrpopstar Aug 10, 2014 20:31:11	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#24 reddaemon Aug 10, 2014 20:41:51	You can just drop the weapon to do your reaction.  All you do is just simply stop supporting the weight of the thing you are holding.  Takes 0 effort.  It doesn't take an action to pick it back up on your next turn, nor does it cost any of your movement.  If it's possible to do this, then why isn't it possible to take one hand off your weapon to react?
#25 mrpopstar Aug 10, 2014 20:43:55	reddaemon wrote:
#26 Alpizarai Aug 10, 2014 21:41:49	IT IS THE ONLY SPELL I've found that works as a re-action on the Basic Rule Set. You gotta think of that--if you maxed your AC (say around 20 shielded), you can use said reaction to practically bust your AC to 25; making it hard for even the CR13 WHite Dragon on the Tyrannt Web Enhancement. Let me repeat it--the only spell that actually works, having a casting time of 1 Reaction.
(Reply to #23) 2Chlorobutanal	mrpopstar wrote:
#28 mrpopstar Aug 10, 2014 21:49:06	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
(Reply to #28) 2Chlorobutanal	mrpopstar wrote:
#30 mrpopstar Aug 10, 2014 22:01:16	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#31 Caliburn101. Aug 11, 2014 5:48:37	There are any number of rules systems where a dodge or parry or blocking effect roll comes after the attacker's successfu roll to hit.   Actually, in real life, you don't bother parrying as many misses as you do hits when sword fighting etc.   It isn't the slightest bit 'wonky' or 'wierd'.   A jet fighter releases chaff to make an otherwise on-target radar guided missile, miss, AFTER it has been fired.   A fencing master parries a lunge at his sternum AFTER the attack is initiated.   Indiana Jones dodge rolls under the bloody great scythe trap AFTER the air displacement gives away the fact the trap has been sprung.   I can understand your point, kind of, if you haven't played any other system before, but I think just a little reflection on the matter and this thread wouldn't have been necessary.   Hell - a saving throw is rolled AFTER the fireball exploded on you, so it's not even like this is an unprecedented rule at all...
(Reply to #31) hallows1999	Caliburn101. wrote:
(Reply to #32) aljergensen	hallows1999 wrote:
(Reply to #33) Lucas_Blackstone	aljergensen wrote:
#35 Sherman Aug 12, 2014 14:43:43	One thing that might help with your meta problem is to remember that it's a game and everything about it is pretty much meta. You're constantly making decisions based on mechanics. When the GM describes a horde of blood thirsty orcs descending on you don't have your character pee his pants and hide, you say, ho-hum, I'm tenth level, time to get hackin'. That's the game.   That aside, Shield also lasts until your next turn. I would not take it if all it did was make one attack miss, but the idea of having +5 AC vs. an onslaught of attacks is kind of sweet. Knowing that I could have my wizard use a Defend option and walk through an entire horde of orcs, or step out and call on a dozen bowmen to take their best shot seems sounds like fun. It's a tactical spell on some level and dumbing it down removes that element.